Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of an inquiry into an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain.—[Mr. Browne.]

Charlotte Atkins: We are working across Departments on the cycling strategy. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the health White Paper, he would find some very encouraging remarks about improving the opportunities to cycle. Colchester has benefited from small cycling grants; £1.5 million was spent on cycling schemes in his area in 2003–04 and another £1 million in 2004–05. In addition, we are involved in a range of other ways. For example, £10 million has been invested to link hundreds of schools to the national cycle network. That has come about through match funding by local authorities of nearly £27 million.

Chris Bryant: It is delightful to hear about so many people cycling and how good it is for people's health, but does the Minister agree that cyclists sometimes can be a complete and utter nuisance? [Interruption.] They behave worse on the roads than many others; cycling straight through red lights, for example. Is it not time to ensure that a proper safety process is in place so that people learn to obey the rules of the road when they start cycling?

Greg Knight: Will the Minister reflect again on the point just made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? Does she not accept that far too many cyclists are ignoring traffic lights and that an increasing number of them are prepared to use the mobile phone while on the move? Will she continue the Government's trend in that direction, which we welcome, and embrace yet another Conservative policy initiative by banning cyclists from using mobile phones?

Charlotte Atkins: It is already an offence to be in charge of a cycle while not properly in control of it. I   would argue that using a mobile phone while cycling demonstrates that the cyclist is not cycling safely. I   understand that Conservative Members occasionally use mobile phones while cycling. I consulted my local community police officer, who informed me that he certainly considers cycling while using a mobile phone to be an unsafe practice.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the £10 million given to Sustrans for the links to schools programme. What other resources will be made available within the scheme to help the other 99 per cent. of English schools and whether Sustrans will receive any more generalised funding on account of the superb work that it does in many parts of the country? I have used some of the long-distance routes, which are helpful for tourism and for health.

Alistair Darling: I know of the importance of the Leigh guided busway, and I know from my discussions with my hon. Friend that he has done a great deal to ensure that the Department has it very much at the front of its mind, which will continue to be the case. I have said to Greater Manchester passenger transport executive that we want a comprehensive approach to transport, which will include guided busways as well as Metrolink and   other measures. Greater Manchester has a superb opportunity, building on what it has already done, to establish itself as a leader in this country in tackling transport problems. I very much hope that it will do that. We can then consider any proposals that it makes in the context of the transport innovation fund.

Patsy Calton: Can the Secretary of State explain why, with worsening road traffic congestion in Greater Manchester, he has cancelled the   procurement of Metrolink phase 3 from Manchester to Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester airport, so delaying investment in new light rail lines by at least two years, failed to find funding for the implementation of the south-east Manchester multimodal study's recommendations for transport investment, and failed to recognise that an estimated £60 million of investment is required in signalling and track on the Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale railway line, which would not have been needed if Metrolink phase 3 had been approved? [Interruption.] Is it because so much has—

Alistair Darling: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have got the long and the short of it; the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) can feel confident that his position as principal spokesman for the Liberals is not under threat. [Hon. Members: Shame!] I am about to give the hon. Lady a Christmas present, which is the latest Liberal party policy; it is to call a halt to all new road building. Everything she said about road plans in Greater Manchester rings rather hollow, given her own party's policy.
	On Metrolink, the more serious point, the costs on the project to build three additional lines went from £280 million in 2000 to £520 million a year later, and it is now agreed that it would cost at least £900 million. No Government—not even a Liberal Democrat one—could simply nod through a proposal that had trebled in cost in just four years. If the hon. Lady reflects on that, she, too, will surely agree that it is quite right that Greater Manchester and ourselves should sit down and ask how better to control costs. I have made it clear that I want Metrolink to be expanded, and I have made a proposal to Greater Manchester that will, I think, enable that to   happen. It must be clear, however, not just in Manchester but across the rest of the country, that costs have to be kept under control, even in Liberal Democrat-land.

Alistair Darling: The A34 is important. Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman, and for the benefit of the   House, that we were able to approve in the last month or so substantial investment in the north-west; something like £870 million over the next three years. Other proposals are still in the pipeline and will be considered. They are not being cancelled or scrapped; they are still there. But under any system, we have to prioritise. Of course the hon. Gentleman can come and see one of my ministerial colleagues, but I say to him, in the nicest possible way, that he might want to reflect that his party is signed up to cutting transport spending by £1.8 billion. If it did so, not just the A34 but a few other projects would fall by the wayside permanently.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will the Transport Secretary confirm that the unsuccessful local transport plan bid for a Rochdale interchange could be part of a successful bid to the transport innovation fund? Will my right hon. Friend remember that the Labour authorities made sure that the Oldham and Rochdale metro scheme remained a priority; no thanks to the Liberals, who kept trying to shunt it off to Hazel Grove?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friends played a prominent role in ensuring that the metro remained on track and that we tried to face up to the difficulties. My hon. Friend has played a substantial part in making sure that   the Rochdale interchange remained on the Department's books. I expect it to be one of the many considerations taken into account by Greater Manchester PTE. What I want from the PTE and other local authorities is a comprehensive package of measures to tackle congestion and to make transport better. I know that the Rochdale interchange is an important part of that, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.

Alistair Darling: I notice that the hon. Gentleman committed himself to fund the Manchester metro whatever the cost. It does not bode well for the future if that is his attitude to public spending. He may be telling us that if a project trebles in price, it is all right and he does not mind; if so, he may want to have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who on one of his more sensible days may caution him against such a view. As for the Government's position generally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that for the past seven years we have seen substantial, continued and strong economic growth, which has allowed us to fund public services; not just transport but other services. That is something that the   Conservatives did not manage to do during the 18 years that they were in power. They produced two of the deepest recessions and savage spending cuts for transport. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what would go as a result of the £1.8 billion of cuts to which his party is signed up.

Gregory Barker: How much funding was allocated to the Highways Agency for road improvement schemes in (a) Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex and (b) England in each year since 2002.

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically non-partisan question. I remember visiting his constituency two and a half years ago, when he and his local councillors impressed on me the importance of a junction between junctions 29 and 30. I   am delighted that it has been announced; it will release some of that land and create jobs in an area where many jobs were lost under the last Government through the closure of the pits. I will give careful consideration to naming the junction Skinner's junction.

Roger Gale: May I take the Minister back to road funding for Kent? The east Kent approach road is vital to the development of Manston airport, the continued commercial development of Pfizer, a major employer at Sandwich, the development of Westwood cross and the whole economic development of east Kent. Will he explain why his Department does not consider phase 2 of the road a priority? Will he also explain the logic in allowing Kent county council to commence the road, but then pulling the plug on the funding for the rest of it?

David Jamieson: Well, this is interesting; the hon. Gentleman now shows himself more committed to user charging. On the ground, some of his party's members and councils have opposed things such as congestion charging. That seems rather inconsistent. As he knows, and as has been said from the Dispatch Box on several occasions, road user charging can come in only when we have the technology in the cars and in the sky, and that is probably 10 years away. However, we are certainly talking about it and consulting, and we shall be pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

Tony Clarke: I congratulate the Government and the Northamptonshire casualty reduction partnership on the work that they have done so far . Is he aware of research carried out by the Loughborough sleep research centre? The research shows two things: first, that small amounts of alcohol have a major impact on people falling asleep at the wheel, particularly at this time of the year when they have the odd glass of wine with their Christmas dinner and drive home from their families; and, secondly, that the under-30s are the most vulnerable group—particularly in early mornings—because of restrictions on their sleeping patterns. Will he take those two points on board when designing future campaigns so that the most vulnerable are aware of those dangers?

Alan Milburn: The effect on the Duchy of the Freedom of Information Act is expected to be minimal. However, advisory committees on justices of the peace will be affected by the Act. All 17 committees have signed a   declaration form confirming their participation in the   model publication scheme with the Information Commissioner. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman and   the House that both the strategy unit and the No.   10 policy directorate have been part of preparations for the Act. The effect of the Act on their work will obviously depend on the number and complexity of requests that they receive.

Andrew Selous: Will the Freedom of Information Act make it possible to discover whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster played a role in recent decisions made across Government Departments that have led to files being shredded and emails being deleted before the Act enables them to be seen by the public?

Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend go further than that? The Short money is, I   think, worth about £4 million a year to the Tory party, and the Liberal Democrats get a hefty chunk as well from the British taxpayer. What concerns people like me is that some of that money could be spent for party political purposes by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, shifting personnel who are supposed to be paid from the parliamentary provision. It is high time that there was an investigation, with emails and everything else uncovered, to find out where the money is going. The British taxpayer wants to know.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking us for giving prior notice of the report. Generally speaking, that is how we work. Whatever else he gets up to in other parts of his work, we have a non-partisan relationship, and similarly with the Liberal Democrats, on Law Officer matters. I thank him also for saying that the Attorney-General's report is a model of its kind. It is.
	It is important to bear it in mind that many people said, "Let sleeping dogs lie. The Court of Appeal has given its judgment. If somebody knows that they are one of these cases, let them take it up. Don't go to all the time, trouble and expense of looking for a needle in a haystack, going back 10 years and involving every part of the country." We were clearly of the view that we had to do more than wait for people themselves to say, "Has there been a problem with the case?". We wanted to ensure that no stone was left unturned, that we identified similar cases and that we actively reviewed them and referred those where there was concern.
	Of the 28 cases where there was concern, three were   sudden infant death syndrome cases, while the 25 were not directly analogous to the Cannings case. The hon. Gentleman asked me what sort of cases they were. They were cases where there were other issues of difference of view or concern about medical expert evidence. For example, there is damage to the child's head, internal and external, and experts differ as to whether it was caused by a blow or by a fall. The House will understand that that is not analogous to the Cannings case. It is where there is not evidence other than the evidence of experts and where the experts disagree, but where it is not sudden infant death.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the 89 shaken baby syndrome cases. As the law stands, these cases should not give us cause for disquiet in terms of what has been said so far by the Court of Appeal. As the law stands, these cases need no further action. There is a shaken baby case that we have referred. We are not saying that we will not refer. If there is cause for concern and if it is a shaken baby case, we will refer it. However, there are cases where, pending what the Court of Appeal says, we see no further need for action at this stage. Having gone to the effort of identifying these cases, we are bearing it in mind that, depending on the guidance that the Court of Appeal gives, we may need to consider them again. If we are to do that, we shall make a statement to the House. That will be by way of a written statement, or an answer to a question asked by the hon. Gentleman, or an oral statement.
	During these proceedings we have tried to work with our opposite numbers and to keep the House informed. I made an oral statement in January, we made written statements and parliamentary answers were given in February, May and July. We have tried to keep the House up to date with the process.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about cases that are more than 10 years old. There was one such case where the defendant asked us to consider it, and of course we did. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that any cut-off point is arbitrary. I think that in future the process will be easier. God forbid we should ever have this situation in future, but things will be easier in future because we have computerised records. Going back two years and even five years, let alone 10 years, when the personnel involved had changed and all the manual records had been filed, was an exhausting job. It was like looking for needles in a haystack through the 42 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service. I thank CPS staff for the work they did, together with their colleagues in the police and in the Home Office. It was difficult to be satisfied that we had found all the cases going back 10 years. I am satisfied that we have now done so. Even now, if anybody thinks their case is one of those, whether it is within or beyond the 10-year period, they can refer it for examination and we will look at it. There are facilities available to help. The Attorney-General has asked the central review team to look at these cases in the interests of justice. If somebody wants to know whether theirs is such a case, the Attorney-General will ask the central review team to examine it.
	Of course expert evidence—the hon. Gentleman made an important point in this regard—should not stray into giving opinion. We can all understand the situation when there has been a robbery, somebody saw   somebody doing it and there is a question of identification. Was it that person? Is the person who said something telling the truth? Everybody is used to that in court, and everyone understands the situation. Forensic science offers the criminal justice system and the quest for justice—ensuring that guilty people are brought to   account—great opportunities that did not exist previously. For example, a rape case where the victim had died could be prosecuted because of forensic DNA evidence. We should recognise the importance and value of expert evidence, but have protocols in place to ensure that it is of the proper quality and provides scientific fact, rather than opinion.

John Burnett: I, too, am grateful to the Solicitor-General for letting me have early sight of the Attorney-General's statement and of the Attorney-General's and review team's reports. The House will have noted the correct distancing of the central review team from the prosecuting process, and the decision to review convictions up to 10 years old, the scrutiny of the deceased child cases involving children up to two years old, and the fact that all cases were reviewed, not just those in which there had been two instances of death in the family.
	I join the Solicitor-General in paying tribute to the   central review team, particularly Howard Cohen, the project manager, Mr. Price QC and the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose co-operation was essential to the review.
	Before I reach what I consider to be the heart of the   matter, I have one or two initial questions on the statement. First, when will what I shall call the Dr. Alan Williams report be concluded, and when will it be placed in the Library of the House? Will the Solicitor-General make a statement when the report is concluded? Secondly, I understand that Dr. Alan Williams and Professor Sir Roy Meadow are subject to proceedings before the General Medical Council, and I would be grateful if she confirmed that and told the House whether she has any idea when these proceedings are to be heard. Thirdly, will she confirm that there is no bar on any case, even on one more than 10 years old, being appealed to the Court of Appeal—or, for that matter, to the CCRC?
	It is difficult to conceive of anything more tragic to parents than the death of a child. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, these tragedies have been compounded by what have turned out to be dreadful miscarriages of justice in the family courts and thereafter in the criminal courts. Two strong principles have to be balanced: the right of parents to have care of their children and the rights of the children themselves. The right of any child must be paramount and I hope that everyone in the House understands and agrees with that. Nevertheless, there have been some appalling miscarriages of justice, which call for further safeguards.
	At the very core and heart of the problem is the credibility, expertise and conscientiousness of medical expert witnesses. The House will know the difference between proceedings in the criminal and in the family courts. It is right that in the family courts, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, which enables those courts to be a less adversarial forum and ensures that the interests of the child come first. Having said   that, I believe that it should be open to parents in family proceedings to challenge the competency and the evidence of expert witnesses. That could also be done in the criminal courts, and it is a change that would ensure greater fairness in family proceedings.
	Both the family and criminal courts have considerable difficulty in finding experts of a high standard to give medical evidence in proceedings. That is particularly so when the—

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Justice delayed is justice denied. Even if people are not in prison they want an answer to the points that they raise. I pay tribute to Graham Zellick of the CCRC, who is keen to ensure that the answer given must be right and as prompt as possible. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Home Office are aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) talked about non-accidental injury to children. That takes a terrible toll that is dealt with around the country by social services departments, doctors and prosecutors. The distinct point about those cases is that the Cannings judgment involved no other evidence. Expert medical testimony was engaged only after the children's deaths, and the experts disagreed. There will be all sorts of other evidence in most non-accidental injury cases. The problem about the cases with which we are concerned today is that the central evidence was expert medical evidence and the experts involved disagreed. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that such cases must be regarded as unsafe.

Dennis Skinner: This is an important debate because it gives us a chance to talk about issues in our constituencies. I want to talk about something important in the constituency that I represent and, to some degree, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
	In the early 1990s, our two constituencies saw the effect of pit closures on a massive scale, so much so that   there is not a single large deep mine in the whole of   the north Derbyshire coalfield. For us and for others   like us, that produced problems that seemed insurmountable in terms of jobs. We were talking about ex-pit villages, many of them with 15 to 20 per cent. unemployment. At or around the time of the 1997 election, my hon. Friend, I and a few others decided to try to develop a regeneration scheme for that coalfield. The net result is that unemployment has fallen to somewhere between 5 and 6 per cent., and marginally less in some areas.
	One way in which we did that, and which we want to continue, is that we managed to get some pit tips flattened. I got £24 million from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to flatten Shirebrook pit tip. In the course of next year, a firm will produce something in the order of   1,000 jobs on that site. For a place like Shirebrook, which felt the world had collapsed in the early 1990s when the pit shut, that is manna from heaven. I am pleased that we were able to get the money and set the show on the road.
	Another scheme that my hon. Friend and I took part in was in making sure that we developed the old Markham Bolsover pit site. There was massive potential for turning that into a business park, which would probably be one of the biggest in the whole north. It needed a new junction, 29A, on the motorway, and hon. Members will have heard me talking about that over the past four or five years. Some people said we would never get it and that it was way off beam, the Greens would object and so on. In the course of this week, we have received news from the Highways Agency that junction 29A will go ahead. It is only a small motorway junction—about half a mile in length—but, believe me, it goes straight into the heart of territory that will provide more than 5,000 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency, in my constituency and in Chesterfield.
	There has been nothing of that dimension since the pits were sunk, and it will change the whole nature of the   north Derbyshire coalfield. For that, we should be pleased. I managed about three years ago to get the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), to announce the first £15 million tranche of the money, and the acceptance of the scheme means that literally scores of firms will want to get on to the site. It pleases me greatly to think that, having started out on a scheme like that, there has not been a recession to stop it. That is the important thing that people have to remember. I have been in here long enough to know that we put forward wonderful ideas but about half-way through someone says it is a great idea but is running into trouble and will have to be held back for a year or two. In the course of six years, there has not been a hitch, and that means that the show will be on the road to provide much-needed jobs for that area.
	It will change the constituencies. In some cases, the old solidarity that existed in the mining communities will not be the same. We all know that, but I do not have a romantic view of the pits. I worked down them for 21 years and I am not one of those academics who think that when we were fighting to save the pits, the jobs were somehow the best in the world. Believe me, we were fighting for the communities and the solidarity, but it was hard, dangerous work.
	The new junction will be a very important development for about four constituencies in our area. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport on going ahead with the scheme despite the fact that a lot of people thought that it would never gain any ground. On the Shirebrook pit development, £24 million of development will release 1,000 jobs in the course of the next year. The three pits closed in the early 1990s—Shirebrook, Bolsover and Markham—were the last three deep mine pits in the whole of the north Derbyshire coalfield, and they will now all be part of a business and work development, which is very good news for the area.
	I want to mention a couple of other things, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons will write them down for his reply. I know he has all the good stuff down already, but there are always a few things that do not go right. One of them was the healthy living project in Bolsover. It is really a swimming bath, but "healthy living project" sounds better. I thought that with a title like that we could spin our way to another success, just as we did with junction 29A. It is a swimming bath, but it was connected to the national health service, which was to put money in as well. Various other stakeholders—I think that is the term these days—were involved, and we thought that the project would materialise.
	We thought we would successfully get £1 million from the lottery, but we happened to need it just at the moment when lottery funds were collapsing. Sport England did not turn up to a meeting; I think they felt a bit guilty. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport came to the meeting and promised that we would get the show on the road. Unfortunately, Sport England did not deliver. I know there have been problems there, but   the Deputy Leader of the House must make sure that those responsible will bring it into line. We want that healthy living project completed in Bolsover to coincide with the new jobs just down the road on the old Markham Bolsover pit site. We need that project.
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell the Minister for Sport that we still need to get that job completed? If we do, it will be another bonus for our area, which was hit so badly by the pit closures.
	I have been campaigning, along, principally, with one or two other Labour Members, on the question of the fourth option. What I am talking about is the idea that local authorities, like Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire, should have the right not only to carry on with their housing programmes but to build more council houses. They should have the right not to fall for   the nonsense continually put in front of them of having to have housing corporations, arm's-length management organisations and all the rest of it.I am not knocking those who have done it. If people want to get involved with ALMOs, that is their business, but in Bolsover in a recent poll more than 90 per cent. of tenants said that they wanted to remain with the council. That is a significant number. At Camden recently, there was a 70 per cent. turnout, but we were even higher.
	Set against that background, my hon. Friend the Minister should tell the Deputy Prime Minister that there should be a level playing field. Those authorities who want to build new houses for their people and keep their own programme should not lose out to authorities that have gone for an ALMO or another option. They should be treated exactly the same and given the right to carry on building as and when they feel fit.
	If we get the healthy living project, the councils running the local authority housing and the money to carry it out and then the jobs and all the rest of it, Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire will have been completely transformed. We shall be able then to say to all our constituents, "Labour has kept its promise. Don't let the Tories ruin it."

Andrew MacKay: May I first, uncharacteristically, agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? In my constituency, the overwhelming majority of council tenants would much rather be tenants of the excellent Conservative-controlled borough council. Tenants who unfortunately come under housing associations get a much worse deal. All that they want is a level playing field on finance when a decision is made, and we are doubtful that we will achieve that.
	There are three reasons why I believe that the House should not adjourn immediately. One is a local issue, one is a regional issue and the third is an international issue. I should like to take up the local issue first. A month ago, a mother of a young constituent of mine, Alistair aged 10, approached me. She said that, for six years, medical opinion had said that her son should have occupational therapy, yet he had had it for only six months in that period. I thought that that was amazing and disgraceful. I did not even necessarily believe it to be true at the time.
	I made representations to the chief executive of Bracknell primary care trust. I should like to quote from   the letter that Ms Diane Hedges sent to me on 8 December. She said:
	"Unfortunately our Specialist Speech and Language Therapist for dysfluency has left the department and we have so far been unsuccessful in replacing her. We have advertised nationally and in our professional journals for this and other vacancies and have also encouraged internal applicants to apply, offering training, development and support packages in this specialist field. You will no doubt be aware that there are significant problems with recruiting Speech and Language Therapists nationally, and this is particularly difficult in some specialist areas such as dysfluency.
	As an interim measure, we have been fortunate to have been able to employ some short-term locum Speech and Language Therapists through Locum Agencies. Obviously, this has a significant cost implication and so we would be unable to maintain continuous employment even if the staff were available. This has resulted in periods where there has been no service available for this client group, and long waiting lists building up.
	Alistair was referred to us in October 2002 and, following initial assessment by a generalist Speech and Language Therapist in Bracknell, was referred to the specialist service in Slough. Alistair received 10 appointments of individual Speech and Language Therapy from locum specialist therapists between March and October 2003. Unfortunately there was no service for some months due to lack of suitably qualified/experienced locums. Alistair was seen again by a locum Speech and Language Therapist in October 2004 but as she was only employed for a very limited period, she was unable to offer Alistair on-going therapy.
	We are very aware that this situation is extremely unsatisfactory for the many children and families who are in need of specialist intervention and would like to assure you that we are doing everything we can to recruit a suitable, permanent Speech and Language Therapist. In the meantime, we shall continue to employ locum therapists whenever possible and will offer Alistair further specialist intervention as soon as we can."
	In other words, the situation is every bit as bad as the mother said. Here is a child in real need who is not getting the attention that he deserves.
	I have written to the Secretary of State for Health to draw the matter to his attention. I have yet to receive a reply, but I would appreciate it if the Minister in his summing up assured me that there would be a proper reply. It is not good enough to say, "Perhaps you Tories when you were in Government should have trained more therapists." I remind the Minister that he has been in office for seven and a half years, and the situation has steadily deteriorated. No action seems to have been taken to put matters right. I need to have undertakings that my constituents' children will have proper therapy when it is clear that that is what is required.
	The second issue is the regional one. We in the south-east were naturally delighted at the result of the referendum in the north-east. The people of the north-east did the right thing. In all my experience in elected office, I have never come across members of the public or constituents who wanted more politicians, more bureaucrats and more layers of Government.
	We in Berkshire got it just right a few years ago. We abolished the county council and we now have excellent unitary authorities run by three different political parties from time to time, although increasingly by the Conservative party. As they are unitary authorities, they deliver and the buck stops with them, so the idea of Berkshire, which got rid of the county council some years ago, wanting a regional assembly is wrong. It is the last thing that we want.
	I hope that the Government will seriously consider abolishing the dreadful South East England regional assembly—SEERA. It serves no useful purpose; the people who are members of it are not directly elected and are answerable to no one. There is a bunch of bureaucrats, a bunch of hangers-on from various quangos, one or two semi out-of-work business men and trade unionists, and one or two councillors with nothing better to do. They cost us a lot of money. Worse still, recently they tried to foist huge numbers of extra houses on the south-east, which was deeply unwelcome. A combination of Conservative councillors on SEERA and environmental groups managed on 29 November to reverse the decision.
	We need to have planning matters decided by the local planning authority—in my case, Bracknell Forest borough council or Wokingham unitary authority. If the decision is not satisfactory, there is an opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State. That is the right way to proceed. We do not want planning decisions made through some unelected regional body. SEERA is costing a lot of money and is unnecessary. I should like the Minister to assure me that the Government are seriously considering, in the light of the referendum result, abolishing such quangocracies.

Mike Hall: I shall begin where I finished my last speech in a recess Adjournment debate by referring to Halton hospital in my constituency. I can report to the House that significant improvements have been made recently at the hospital, including in the use of theatre space, which means that more people in Halton can be treated at Halton general hospital. That is a move in the right direction and I   commend it.
	We have also seen massive improvements in the fabric of the building, with £550,000 invested in the minor injuries unit, including a superb area for the expert treatment of children who have been injured. Some £300,000 has been spent on creating a state-of-the-art endoscopy unit, which will also bring benefits to the people of Halton. We will also have more urology surgery, more breast cancer surgery and more vascular surgery at Halton hospital—all to the benefit of the people I represent in the Runcorn area of my constituency.
	Improvements in the quality of treatment are becoming apparent, including increased day surgery, improved radiology outpatient outcomes and theatre utilisation. We are looking forward to the establishment of an independent treatment centre at Halton hospital for orthopaedic patients, to tackle one of the most serious waiting lists in the borough. That will mean that people from Halton can be treated in their local hospital, quickly and expertly, and receive fantastic service free on the national health service.
	We are also hoping that in the next 12 months we will have an announcement that Halton hospital will get one of the new regional renal units. The borough of Halton has a particular problem with renal failure. No one knows why, but it may be a legacy of the borough's industrial past or a local genetic problem. However, if Halton hospital gets a renal unit, it will mean a major improvement in how it serves local people.
	Halton hospital still has a problem because its level 3 intensive care two-bed unit has been closed for 16 months. The clinical director at North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust decided to close that unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I have pressed the trust, the executive board, the chief executive and the chairman to find a solution to that problem, but I am sorry to say that we have yet to see any prospect that the two beds will be reopened. Halton hospital may soon face winter pressures, and it would helpful if those beds were reopened, but I know that that will not now happen before Christmas. However, I   congratulate the trust on trying to resolve the problem by inviting the Cheshire and Merseyside Critical Care Network to see whether the beds can be reopened with the 24/7 intensive care that is available at Warrington hospital or if there is any other way to provide intensive care facilities at Halton hospital.
	I commend to the Cheshire and Merseyside Critical Care Network the Bishop Auckland study, which shows that cottage hospitals can have intensive care units without any problems with the quality of care provided to patients. I would also draw the network's attention to the report produced by a senior consultant at Whiston hospital, when he examined the issue almost 12 years ago, which said that there was no medical reason why those intensive care beds could not be reopened.
	I wish to congratulate my friend, Alan Massey, who has been appointed as the chair of the North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust. I am sure that he will do a fantastic job. He lives in the borough of Halton and he will provide the strong leadership that the trust needs. It would be remiss of me not to mention my other friend, Norman Banner, the outgoing chairman, who has done a fantastic job as the chair of both the Warrington Hospital NHS Trust and, after the merger, the new trust. I congratulate Norman on the work that he has done and I appreciate that he has had to leave the post because he has been made a senior partner in his legal practice and no longer has the time to devote to the duties of chairing an excellent trust.
	I now wish to raise an issue that I have previously raised in Westminster Hall—the need for a new Mersey gateway. People familiar with the capital know that there are 28 crossings over the River Thames. There are only three over the River Mersey: the new Silver Jubilee bridge between Runcorn and Widnes, Bridge Foot in Warrington, a local road that crosses the Mersey, and the Thelwall viaduct, which, I am pleased to announce, reopened all its lanes to traffic this week.

Mike Hall: On Monday, too.
	The economic benefits for the region of a new Mersey crossing would be substantial. We need a new strategic north-south transport link. It would bring 7,000 jobs to the area and the transport economic benefits are forecast as £1.4 billion. The Silver Jubilee bridge carries 90,000 vehicles across the Mersey every day, but only 20 per cent. of those are local vehicle movements. It is clearly a vastly over-used strategic link, so we need a second crossing.
	The estimated costs for the second crossing are modest: £250 million. If it was free to use—my preferred option—we should need a private finance initiative credit of £500 million over 30 years. The local authority proposed the use of tolls on the new Mersey crossing, with concessions for local people, which would take only £68 million of PFI credit over 30 years, with the Government having to provide £64 million for the   purchase of land connected to the building of the crossing.
	The crossing is essential. Halton borough council submitted its report—the revised scheme appraisal for the Mersey gateway: a new Mersey river crossing—on 30 November and we are waiting for the Department for Transport to tell us that the scheme will receive Government approval. I congratulate the leader of the council, Councillor Tony McDermott, who has done a fantastic job in taking the scheme forward. I also congratulate the council and the local government consortium—Liverpool city council, Sefton borough council, St. Helens borough council and Warrington borough council; they have all contributed to the strategic need for a new Mersey crossing.
	To stick with transport, the Strategic Rail Authority recently announced that it was looking at local rail services that are, in its opinion, underused. It is challenging local communities to propose schemes to enhance the use of those services, thereby protecting them. One such service is from Chester to Manchester, Piccadilly, via Frodsham and Warrington, which runs through the northern part of my constituency. However, as it is one of Arriva's most profitable routes, the reason for its being described as underused is completely beyond me. Constituents write to tell me that they cannot even board the trains because they are full. When Chester races are held, there is not enough rolling stock to carry the passengers who need to use the line.
	Another problem on that route is that the ticket-collecting arrangements are not very good, so a head count of people who buy tickets may not actually reflect the volume of use, especially between Frodsham and Warrington. If the SRA were to count the people who use the service rather than those who buy tickets, it would see a major increase in utilisation of the service.
	The Helsby to Ellesmere Port line runs through the north-west part of my constituency. That service is underused because there are only two services in the early morning and one in the afternoon. If we want to improve use of the line, services should be scheduled throughout the day, at more convenient times for people to travel.
	I finish my contribution by congratulating the Government on a major project, which will ensure that Northwich town centre in my constituency does not collapse into a great big cavity. Northwich town centre is built on four disused salt mines, which have been manually excavated, leaving pillars of salt underground that keep the ceilings of the mines stable so that the town centre does not disappear. The theory, or the physics, is that the mines are filled with saturated salt solution—brine—so the pillars are stable and nothing happens.

Kevan Jones: Fill them with nuclear waste!

Mike Hall: Not nuclear waste. That is at Winsford in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien); I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the most inappropriate use of a salt mine, but I   shall not spend too much time on that point as time is short.
	In Northwich, the pillars of salt have started to corrode and if we do not stabilise the mines, Northwich will disappear into a great big cavern. In 1997, I approached the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ask the Government to find a solution. They brought forward a scheme whereby authorities can apply to the Government for funds to assist them in dealing with non-coal mining subsidence. Vale Royal borough council has been granted £28 million for a stabilisation scheme for Northwich town centre, which involves pumping pulverised fuel ash and cement—a grout—into the ground, while simultaneously removing the saturated salt. The ash and cement set like concrete, so the town centre can be stabilised. Pumping will start on 25 January 2005, which is a fantastic thing for Northwich town centre, and the Government rightly deserve congratulations.
	My final point is about recycling. Vale Royal borough council has introduced a good recycling scheme, with kerbside collections, but it has reduced domestic collections to once fortnightly, or twice a month. Over the Christmas period, there will be a collection every week and the residents say that that should not be just for Christmas but all year round—they are singing that they wish it was Christmas every week.

Paul Tyler: Before we adjourn I want to draw attention, yet again, to the way in which we as a nation treat service families. I suspect that every Member has a number of service families in their constituency; we certainly have plenty in the south-west.
	Everyone plays lip service to the welfare of service families and, indeed, to the fact that service personnel are the most crucial asset of our armed forces. No doubt, the Prime Minister is repeating that mantra to our troops in Iraq today; but what sort of message is the Ministry of Defence sending them?
	In a succession of recess Adjournment debates, I have drawn attention to a sad failure by the MOD. The Deputy Leader of the House is always meticulous in his promise to get a response from the MOD, yet that response is never as positive, encouraging and supportive of service families as I, and other Members, would like. That does not just have a damaging effect on morale, and, therefore, on recruitment and retention, but it is intrinsically immoral to exploit those who serve our country so well, in the most dangerous and demanding circumstances, and not to take full responsibility for the outcome.
	Let us consider the troops who suffered, and continue to suffer, serious health effects from their service, on our behalf, in the first Gulf war in 1991. I have an interest—not a financial interest—as a member of the Royal British Legion Gulf war group, and I have long campaigned for a public inquiry into Gulf war illnesses. After the obdurate refusal of Conservative Ministers to investigate, we all hoped, on both sides of the House, for a more positive, optimistic attitude in 1997, with the change of Government. We hoped that there would be a fresh start.
	Indeed, things looked good for a few weeks. The   "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses—A New Beginning" consultation paper made hopeful noises; but all too soon, the very same refusal to open up the whole issue to public examination gave veterans and their families the feeling that the MOD was more concerned with protecting its secret mistakes than recognising the extent and devastating effect of those illnesses. When, eventually, in summer 2004, a wholly independent inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, with Dr. Norman Jones and Sir   Michael Davies, Members on both sides of the House welcomed that initiative.
	One would think that the MOD would have been only too pleased that someone was going to do that work, but its lack of co-operation has made the Ministry's reputation, especially among retired service personnel and their families, even worse than it was previously. There was a Scrooge-like response from the Veterans Minister, with niggling questions about the funding of the inquiry. The correspondence at the end of the report is staggering. Instead of addressing the real issues—the concerns of a large number of our service personnel—all he could do was go on and on about the charitable trust that was funding the inquiry.
	Moreover, there was an absolute refusal to be questioned. I raised with the Prime Minister whether Ministers from the MOD and their officials were prepared to appear before the public inquiry and expose themselves to interrogation. They would not do so, and as a result, I believe, the inquiry has not been as comprehensive as one would have hoped, and they have made it clear yet again that the Ministry is not really interested.

Paul Tyler: I would love to be diverted along that route because I do believe that there is an issue there, but I am trying to keep within the limit although, as a Front-Bench speaker, the clock does not run for me, which is something that I greatly appreciate. I would also have liked to make a contribution at the end of the debate, but I shall try to be as brief as I can, because I am well aware that many hon. Members want to speak.
	The inquiry report was published just a few weeks ago, in November 2004, and the very grudging response from the Ministry and the Minister—in a letter published in The Times, for goodness' sake, not a proper formal response to the inquiry—is a staggering indictment of the way in which the Ministry continues to treat this matter. I quote briefly from the letter that appeared from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who is the Minister for Veterans:
	"I have made clear that we keep an open mind on the need for a public inquiry into Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, an inquiry could not contribute to answering the basic question of why some Gulf veterans are ill. Only scientific research might do so, which is why our research programme at a cost of £8.5 million is so important.
	This is also the reason why I and Ministry of Defence officials did not appear at Lord Lloyd of Berwick's unofficial investigation. I did, however, supply a huge amount of written evidence and information to Lord Lloyd and am disappointed that this does not appear to have been taken fully into account in his conclusions."
	It has been taken very fully into account and the report is a damning indictment of the Ministry's failure to examine the issues itself. In fact, Lord Lloyd's inquiry is very comprehensive and comes up with a number of very helpful recommendations. I do not of course propose to go into them all, but I want to quote very briefly from the report resume, which the inquiry prepared. It said:
	"The most likely explanation may be a combination of more than one cause against a background of stress, since at least some of the causes are thought to have a potentiating effect on each other. But all these causes are directly related to the veterans' service in the Gulf, in what was on any view a very toxic environment. No other possible causes have been proposed. In these circumstances it is not acceptable for the MOD to say:—
	'Yes, you are ill; but since we do not know which of the possible causes has caused your particular illness we are not going to admit that your illness is due to your service'."
	Is that not an excellent summary of the situation? I am sure that hon. Members who have veterans in their constituencies who are still suffering from long-term illness recognise that, at long last, somebody has gone absolutely to the heart of the matter.
	There are still huge problems to overcome. Yes, it would be good to be able to establish precisely what the research can tell us in terms of the causal effect. What we need to do, though, is to recognise that some very ill people—probably 600, but maybe a great many more—are still not having those crucial issues addressed. Indeed, there are thousands of claims for war pensions. Some have been permitted, but the discrimination between one victim and another is one of the particular issues that causes most concern to those who are left out and denied that pension.
	Hon. Members across the House support the call for a much more positive response to Lord Lloyd's report, and 96 Members, of all parties, have signed my early-day motion 81, calling for justice for victims of Gulf war illnesses. That is just the beginning. We cannot allow this situation to go on and on, because those who are already seriously ill will simply die before they obtain justice.
	On a similar issue, I find it staggering, having raised some of these issues in the past, that the families of people who were killed in the early days of the second Gulf war—after the Iraq invasion, 20 months ago—still do not know precisely why their loved ones were killed. Those families are equally badly served by the way in which the Ministry of Defence looks at these matters. In   previous recess Adjournment debates I have raised the case of Sergeant Steve Roberts, who was from my constituency. His family still do not know precisely, and absolutely, whether it was as a result of friendly fire that he was killed and whether, if he had been wearing enhanced combat body armour—which of course was removed from him before he met his death—he would be alive today. It is outrageous that we do not know, after all these many months, precisely what happened. Indeed, it would seem that the Ministry of Defence is more anxious to prosecute those members of his unit who may or may not have been part of that fatal accident, than it is to get to the truth and provide it to those families.
	At Christmas we all think of our families. I hope that all Members of the House will particularly think of those families whose loved ones have suffered serious ill health as a result of their service on behalf of their country or lost their life looking after our interests. I   wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, every happiness during the coming family celebrations of Christmas, as I do all other hon. Members, but I hope that we shall have a thought for those who are not so lucky.

Tom Cox: Thank you very much for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish in this Christmas Adjournment debate to mention two parliamentary early-day motions now on the order book, of which I am the principal sponsor. The two motions are very different and in my view they are not political. The first is early-day motion 89 relating to pensioners of the Maxwell Communications pension fund. The motion has been signed by more than 100 Members from all the main parties. Some are very senior Members, including former Cabinet Ministers.
	Many of us will recall the events that surrounded the death of Robert Maxwell. Many of us feel that we shall never really know how he died. What we soon learned after his death was that he had robbed his companies' pension fund of the money that people who had worked for the Maxwell companies had paid in, expecting that when they retired they would be in receipt of a pension. Very many learned that there would be no pension, or a much reduced one.
	I was very quickly asked by a constituent, a Mr. John Emler who had been a senior official of a Maxwell company, to meet him and his colleagues to discuss the position that they found themselves in, and it was a very sad story that they told me. I then sought to help them and, with the excellent help and advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), members of all political parties became involved because what Maxwell had done affected people in many parts of the country. Some 32,000 people were affected by Maxwell's actions with the contributions that they had made to the pension fund.
	The Government of the day soon realised the scale of Maxwell's despicable actions and started to help. The EDM refers to what was done, which was welcome. However, what deeply concerned people who had worked for the Maxwell companies was that of the money that was raised by Lord Cuckney—some £280 million—£30 million was taken by the Treasury. Sadly, we are now seeing the effects of that action.
	Since February this year, 1,400 members of the pension fund, including people who retired after June 1992, have lost 50 per cent. of their pensions. Their position was made worse by the actions of the Treasury, which took £30 million of the money that Lord Cuckney raised. Early-day motion 89 therefore states that the £30 million should be returned to the pension fund. That money was raised in 1995 for the benefit not of the Treasury, but of the men and women who worked for   the Maxwell companies. Like many hon. Members, I believe that returning it would not present any serious problems to the Treasury. It was not its money in the first place, and it would greatly help retired people, who often live on a limited income, to receive the entitlement that they paid for when they were in work. The number of hon. Members who signed the early-day motion clearly shows that there is support for the proposal, and I urge my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on my views and concerns about this important issue to the Chancellor.
	Early-day motion 92 deals with the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Channel Islands. This year, we have rightly remembered in commemorative events the 60th anniversary of the liberation of European countries. I am a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am the UK representative for our region, which covers the British islands and the Mediterranean. That includes the   Channel Islands, which, as we all know, is a Commonwealth country and is close the United Kingdom both geographically and in friendship.
	The early-day motion refers to the celebrations that will take place in May 2005, which mean a great deal to the people of the Channel Islands. Many individuals who lived through the German occupation are still alive. The suffering that they endured—many of them were deported, forced into labour camps or tortured, and many of them died—has not been fully understood, although an excellent book on the occupation was published by William M. Bell.
	Senator Jean Le Maistre, a senior parliamentarian from Jersey who is closely involved in the CPA, is participating in work on the 60th anniversary and has told me how he and the Channel Islanders want the British involvement to be marked. British military forces liberated the islands and their courage and sacrifice has never been forgotten by the Channel Islanders, who are closely linked to us. It is their wish that our military forces play a major role in the ceremonies next May because, 60 years after the event, they respect and remember the part that they played in the liberation from German occupation.
	I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Defence and his officials soon to begin discussions with political representatives and officials from the Channel Islands about that request and what the Ministry of Defence can do. I assure the Secretary of State that the Channel Islanders and their elected representatives are willing to work with him, given the importance of the 60th anniversary to the Channel Islands and its people.

Virginia Bottomley: It is a   pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox). I thought that he might refer to his Adjournment debate this evening—he is clearly in overdrive today—but I wish him well when he speaks on the important subject of adults abused in childhood. I   know that he has been working with the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which is an important organisation in this area.
	I am afraid that my opening remarks do not reveal my mood about a number of subjects that need to be debated before we adjourn. I could pick a subject to which the new Home Secretary could give his attention. Having moved from the Department for Education and Skills, he may be aware that overseas students require a visa. Appallingly, we take money from them by stealth—it costs them £155 to renew their student visa, and £250 if they try to do so by post. It is quite disgraceful that we should covertly penalise overseas students who, given the way in which higher education funding works, pay well over £7,000 a year in tuition fees. I was a member of the Government who were castigated for increasing overseas students' fees, and I   believe that that is a source of shame. I never thought that a Labour Government would treat overseas students in such a way—and I say so as a governor of the London School of Economics and the University of the   Arts, London; a member of the council of the university of Surrey; and a close associate of the   university of Portsmouth.
	I could speak about the rate support grant. A press notice that, as ever from this Government, is Orwellian in nature spoke about extra funding for local government. Fascinatingly, there is to be 6.2 per cent. extra, but in Waverley it amounts to £45,000—or 2 per cent. below the rate of inflation. That is a classic ploy by the Government who, time and again, have shown contempt for the south-east—the very area that helps to fill the Chancellor's coffers—by forcing through public squalor amid private affluence.
	I could also speak about Milford hospital, which is essential to the local community. The consultation is therefore important.
	However, the issue that I shall speak about is the one about which I feel most strongly. The Government have demonstrated such contempt for the south-east and disregard for Members of Parliament that I am still trembling from the information that I recently received. In a press notice, the Government announced a £1 billion boost for national strategic roads and their programme for the future. We learned that the A3 at Hindhead is to be taken out of the spending programme. The details of the notice show how the Government define whether a road is of predominantly national and international importance or of predominantly regional interest, but everyone in the Highways Agency says that that is purely a political decision.
	A year ago, in response to a question that I asked about the Hindhead tunnel and the time scale for the project, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who had ministerial responsibility for roads, said:
	"Subject to the satisfactory completion of the Statutory Procedures and the availability of funds the A3 Hindhead scheme should be in a position to start construction in 2005 and the new road open to traffic in 2009."—[Official Report, 17 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 920W.]
	The point about that announcement is that neither the   then roads Minister nor the chief executive of the Highways Agency has made any contact with me or my   neighbouring Member of Parliament. I defy the Minister to find a road scheme in the country for which there is a clearer need for new investment—[Interruption.] Name one, please.
	At the inquiry, which started earlier this year, the adviser who was acting on behalf of the Highways Agency said:
	"there is no real necessity for evidence from the Agency that the traffic problems of Hindhead are so acute as to urgently require a solution."
	We only have to go there to see that no responsible highway authority could let those conditions continue when there is a real prospect of a solution. The problem has gone on for too long and local people should wait no longer for a solution.
	I am sure that the House is anxious to know all the fascinating details about the road scheme at Hindhead. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is an area of national and international importance. It is of special landscape value. The Devil's Punch Bowl at Hindhead is the only area on the route between Scotland and Portsmouth that has no dual carriageway. Since this Government have been in power, there have been a great number of roads Ministers, many of them from Scotland, and it is important to point out that they may wish to travel to Portsmouth, which we are now told is   only of regional, not national, significance. Portsmouth is the second most popular passenger port.   It is one of the key gateways to the European continent. The area has the only traffic lights on that route between Gatwick, Heathrow and Portsmouth, but the Government say that this is only of regional interest.

Virginia Bottomley: My right hon. Friend speaks extremely forcefully on behalf of his constituents.
	One of the additional dilemmas is that the planning blight that has been upon the local community for a long time will indeed extend. Rat-running is destroying the local, beautiful villages. It is not only a question of environmental damage, pollution and danger—I hope that the issue will be relevant in the forthcoming elections in the marginal seats in Portsmouth. The area is the economic gateway to Portsmouth and the south coast, and I was pleased with the co-operation that I   received from Portsmouth Members of Parliament when one of the first steps that the Government took on their arrival in office was to take the tunnel out of the programme. With huge effort, we managed to reinstate it.
	A very serious matter, which I hope that the Minister will consider, is that a constituency such as mine has not had a single visit from a Cabinet Minister in all the years since the Government came to power. There is a profound difference in the way that this Government regard holding office to the way in which my colleagues viewed the role. We felt that we were Ministers of the Crown, that we had a national responsibility and that we should be as even-handed as possible in visits to constituencies and in the way that we discharged our duties.
	This Government have been systematically politically partisan in the most deplorable way. Early in their tenure, I heard a Government Whip explain that ministerial visits were used as a way to reward good Back Benchers for docile behaviour. In my judgment, ministerial visits should be used so that Ministers can be seen to be looking, learning and understanding some of the most serious problems that lie within their responsibilities. It was only when I challenged the then Minister, Lord Macdonald, and said what so affronted me about the Labour Government was their contempt for any constituency that was neither marginal nor relevant to their own interests, that he finally visited the A3 at Hindhead and we began to make very slow progress.
	It is extraordinary for the Minister, in the light of the seriousness of the problem, to have been nowhere near the A3 at Hindhead. The manner and handling of the announcement are characteristic. Ministers should regard themselves as Ministers of the Crown, not simply Ministers who are seeking party political advantage within the Labour party. I hope that in reporting to his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House will outline the seriousness with which the issue is regarded. I hope that he will urge his colleague to reply to the endless parliamentary questions.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me, as a Back Bencher, in insisting that all the relevant papers are made public on the advice that was given about the A3 at Hindhead. The project team that has been working on the matter over many years is in no doubt about its importance and the economic, road and environmental significance. I also hope that he will do all in his power to recognise that there is very strong feeling not only about the matter at hand but, most profoundly and seriously, about the way that this and so many other issues have been handled.
	I would like to wish the Minister and others a very happy Christmas; I would like, as I drift towards the exit ramp of my retirement, to do so with benign good will; but I have been so enraged on those four matters over the past four weeks that only if the hon. Gentleman says that he will do his best to reverse the decisions or to ensure a more favourable or sympathetic handling will I wish him and others a benign and happy Christmas.

Harry Barnes: I   now know from the previous speech why Cabinet Ministers do not visit my constituency, and why not a single Cabinet Minister visited it during the 10 years when I was an MP under a Conservative Government.
	Since becoming an MP in 1987, I have raised in the   House on a number of occasions matters of serious   environmental and industrial concern to my constituency, one of which involved Avenue cokeworks at Wingerworth, which suffered considerably from pollution that affected the local community. Cancer clusters were discovered in the area, and the problems had an impact on the work force. The coke ovens had seen better days, and a wide range of by-products were produced on the 240-acre site, including benzene, toluene, ethanol benzene, xylene and volatile organic compounds, which created problems in the area. For instance, if the banks of the River Rother, which runs through the site, were prodded with a stick, tar, oil and gunge would come out. The impact on the local community and on those who worked there was obviously very serious.
	I pressed the then Conservative Government for considerable investment to help to clean up those operations and for modernisation. I realised from other developments in my constituency that investment often helps to increase production and enables workers to enjoy better standards. Needless to say, the funding was not forthcoming. In 1992, the works were closed, with the loss of some 300 jobs.
	Planning permission was granted to open-cast the site and to bury the contaminated soil and the remains of the buildings in a huge hole. That met considerable local opposition from the parishes and environmental groups, and in 1997 I took representatives of those bodies to Leicester to meet English Partnerships. A liaison committee was established and I have chaired it ever since. I think that I was considered acceptable for the role because it was thought that I could hold the two sides together—those responsible for the activity and   those who had campaigned against various developments, even though I had more sympathy for the latter.
	The first development was that the open-cast and landfill plan that had been drawn up was dropped. Plans were then made in a rather cavalier fashion to blow up the chimneys, which contained dangerous dioxins, but that was stopped. Instead, the chimneys and almost the rest of the site were replaced brick by brick as we waited for its later development. It was then proposed to transport the contaminated soil and slurry off the site and to deposit it elsewhere. Its removal and transportation through the community presented obvious dangers, so that plan was also dropped.
	Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister made a most   welcome statement, saying that new remedial technology is to be used to decontaminate and burn off the offending elements in the soil and that the land will be reclaimed. Jobs, housing, sports facilities, a nature reserve and a clean river with wetlands are to be provided under the East Midlands Development Agency and £104 million will be made available for those developments.
	The problem is that the solution to one problem might highlight other problems. Among the problems that I   have raised in the past is the health of the work force. There is pressure on the Department of Health to monitor the incidence of chest disease in those who worked on the coke ovens and the problems faced by those who worked with the chemicals derived from the extraction of coke from coal. The general impact on the   community in the area also needs to be monitored carefully.
	The neighbouring area of Grassmoor is notorious as the birthplace of Paul Burrell, but it faces serious problems that need to be tackled. They include the problems at the Grassmoor lagoons, which were established with waste being piped across from the Avenue cokeworks and Grassmoor colliery. That led to serious contamination, which became apparent in 1992 when the firm closed and the issue of the contamination of the Avenue site came to the fore. However, the problem at Grassmoor is not being tackled through the assistance being made available for the Avenue cokeworks, because ownership was split between East Midlands Development Agency and Derbyshire county council.
	The Grassmoor lagoons are in the Grassmoor country park, which is available for recreational use and is visited by children. However, the lagoons cause terrible pollution, and Derbyshire county council needs funding to tackle the problem.
	The principle of the polluter pays is quite reasonable and, in this case, responsibility lay with the National Coal Board—later to become British Coal—although it has now passed to the Department of Trade and Industry. We are close to a resolution of the problem. The DTI is funding a study to update the remediation strategy for the lagoons and, subject to the outcome of the study, is ready to honour British Coal's liability. That point was repeated to me in a letter that I received today from the DTI.
	I have raised the issue in the debate, because I would like to know what the decision day will be. An equivalent statement is needed to the welcome one that we had from the Deputy Prime Minister in connection with the Avenue site. The matter is of persistent concern to the local community—the local parish council, district and county councillors, the local Labour party, which continues to raise the matter, and constituents who live in the area. The unacceptable smells and odours must be dealt with.Before a general election is announced for 5 May—I will not be standing again—I   hope that we will have a statement that is equivalent to the marvellous statement on the Avenue cokeworks. I hope that things will be put right at Grassmoor as well as at Wingerworth.

Alistair Burt: The House will miss the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in many ways. His fearless championing of a variety of constituency causes has been accentuated by his ability to get up Ministers' noses from time to time, which is no bad thing for a Back Bencher. His regular participation in these debates has been a source of interest to us all. I am sure that we all wish him well when he retires on, I believe, 5 May, but perhaps the Minister might confirm that later.
	I make no apology for returning to the disturbance and fire at Yarl's Wood removal and detention centre in my constituency on Valentine's day 2002. Just over four weeks ago on 16 November and two years and nine months after the incident, the report of the prisons ombudsman, Stephen Shaw—the 450-page volume I   have with me—was published by the Government. They chose to do so in a written ministerial statement, which I regard as inappropriate.
	I draw the issue to the House's attention to make more public the findings of Mr. Shaw's inquiry. It is an exceptional and thorough piece of work, and I pay tribute to him for that. I also ask the House whether it shares my view that the response from the Home Office so far has been less than adequate.
	When I arrived at Yarl's Wood at 5 am that day, I,   like everyone else, was stunned by the extent of the destruction and chaos. Half the largest and newest asylum detention facility in Europe had been destroyed by a fire less than three months after opening and following a major disturbance involving a number of detainees. I say "a number of detainees", because the Government, so the ombudsman found, did not actually know how many people were in their care in Yarl's Wood that night.
	It would have been very easy and tempting for me that   morning to blame the Government, but I did not. I supported their policy, recognising that a sensible asylum and immigration policy required facilities such as those at Yarl's Wood. I had raised issues with Ministers mostly quietly and privately, trying to help the new facility to find its feet and fully appreciating that, whether or not my constituents wanted the centre built, they had now gone along with it and with Group 4 and the immigration authorities to help to make it work.
	I was determined to blame those who had been physically violent, had set fire to the place and had put scores of lives in danger rather than to score a political hit. I believe that I was right to do so. I was also right to praise those who had done so much to minimise the   disaster; right to praise the bravery of Group   4 personnel caught up in the situation; right to praise individual detainees who had tried to help; and right to praise the emergency services—the local police, ambulance and fire personnel for their bravery—and those from the Prison Service in the area who had responded to the emergency calls for help.
	Perhaps hon. Members will realise from a couple of quotes how serious and terrifying the situation was. One of the Group 4 personnel said:
	"As soon as the power went off, this seemed to trigger the real trouble. The group outside . . . started ramming the door with something heavy and they were all screaming 'kill them, kill the bastards'. They punched a bigger hole in the window and through the table behind it, which they then began stuffing towels and blankets through. Then I saw one of them hold up a lit cigarette lighter and then shouting 'we're going to burn you' . . . By now I was absolutely terrified and honestly thought I was going to die."
	A detainee said:
	"I left the building via Delta wing via smashing a window on the side where the road and crowd of detainees were. The reason for this was that the fire doors on the wing were all locked and because of the heat if we had not done this we would have been burnt alive."
	On reading Mr. Shaw's report, I became aware of just how wrong I had been about the Government's position. It describes failure from start to finish in a key   area of Government policy. It details a mixture of   incompetence and deliberate calculation from No.   10 Downing street through the Home Office and its agencies, which led ultimately to a smoking ruin in north Bedfordshire. That contrasts completely with the rather self-serving written ministerial statement that put no blame on the Government.
	I am also raising the matter because I know something about Government failures. Although I did not invent the Child Support Agency, I was the Minister who was first charged with the responsibility of managing it. I had to apologise for its failure from the Dispatch Box and went through two Select Committee inquiries to try to find out why the problems had occurred. I put it to the House that the Home Office should go though exactly the same process for Yarl's Wood.
	The story, although shocking enough in itself, provides an apt description of how the Government work, and I shall make several allegations before illustrating each one with evidence from the inquiry. The Government are incompetent at handling a significant policy issue and they panic under pressure. They waste scarce resources on an epic scale. They are incompetent at managing their agencies. Their use of information for short-term political gain is less than trustworthy. They unfairly pressurise their civil servants and are careless about the lives and liberties of those whom they detain without trial or the committal of a crime.
	If that sounds a bit partial, let me read the ombudsman's conclusions. He said:
	"The targets underpinning the project were unachievable, the project was conducted under unreasonable time constraints, the design of the building was poor in terms both of construction materials and layout, speed of delivery was given undue prominence in the contract letting process, the contractors never looked likely to complete the construction within the agreed timescale, policies were ill-thought through and were inadequately consulted upon, and the incident that led to the disturbance was mishandled."
	Apart from that, it was a textbook case.
	First, let me address the charge of incompetence and panic under pressure. Asylum applications were rising after 1997 and removals remained stubbornly low. There were about 80,000 applications in 2000, but the   number of removals hovered between 7,500 and 8,500 in 1999 and 2000. The pressure on the Government to do something about the situation was considerable. Inside the Home Office in about 2000, a figure of 30,000 removals a year started to be spoken of, although that was far in advance of anything that had been achieved. However, Ministers signed up to the target.
	A senior immigration and nationality directorate official who was cited by the ombudsman talked of the target being met with "shrieks of hollow laughter". When the director of detention in the IND took over in April 2001, he considered the target to be "laughable" and
	"plucked out of the sky".
	However, on the basis of the figure, the detention estate in which people were held prior to removal had to be quickly increased. No. 10 Downing street, its delivery unit and the Prime Minister are now mentioned in that connection. Page 130 of the ombudsman's report says:
	"Pressure to deliver, however, was increased by the Prime Minister taking a close and pressing interest in the question of removals"—
	I ask: how close and how pressing?
	Yarl's Wood was commissioned as a response to meeting the new target, but there was a heavy price to   pay because of the impossible time scale. In relation to the contract, the ombudsman found:
	"The speed with which things started to go wrong suggests it was at best over-ambitious, and at worst wholly ill-conceived. This reflects well neither on the bidder nor on those who let the contract."
	Consequences also arose from the design of the building. The ombudsman said:
	"There is much of which I am critical in this report. The single question that causes me most amazement is how Yarl's Wood came to be built as it was."
	He continued to say:
	"The combination of design and materials resulted in a building that was not capable of withstanding the total loss of control and multiple firesetting that took place on 14 February 2002. The occupied portion of Yarl's Wood survived just three months. It is manifest that, in retrospect, it failed the test of fitness for purpose."
	Incompetence led to disaster.
	Let me turn to the waste of resources. The building cost about £63 million, which did not impress the Prison Service. In an internal memo dated 9 July 2001, a senior figure said:
	"My own view of the IND exercise is that if and when NAO . . . takes an interest they will have a 'field day' in value for money terms. They will surely compare construction costs with our own of £40m for Rye Hill and £69m for the extremely high quality construction at Dovegate for prisons which are considerably more substantial and secure than IDCs . . . IND will argue, however, that the asylum situation, in the run up to the election, was a political imperative demanding immediate remedial action, regardless of cost."
	There are further examples of wasted resources, not least the failure to transfer risk, which has left a bill for £100 million for taxpayers. I shall invite the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office to reflect on the Prison Service's comments in the report.
	The Government are incompetent at managing their agencies. Once the process had started, there was work to be done to ensure that the bidding process was right, that the contract was let properly, that the design and   build were fit for their purpose, that those who were running the establishments knew what they were required to do and that the agencies closely involved with the contactors running Yarl's Wood, such as the IND, were taking decisions that were compatible with the work there. That was not the case, and one of the worst decisions made by the Home Office was that detainees would no longer be held in prisons. That was not a bad decision in itself, but no one spoke to the contractors about its likely impact on the rest of the   estate. People with prison experience and those responsible for the Campsfield house disturbance were deliberately placed in Yarl's Wood, a low-level security establishment, with women and children. Everyone says that that also led to the build-up of tension and pressure that caused the riot.
	The Government have been less than trustworthy. I   cited the target of 30,000 removals, which seemed unachievable. A senior official is reported as apologising to Ministers in April 2000 that the figure had got into the public domain. That seems strange because one apologises only for something that one has got wrong, but in the House on 23 March 2001, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), announced that target some six weeks before the general election campaign. At some time between that point and the next Home Secretary taking office, the figure became unachievable because the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was told that the target had become unachievable at a dinner. That had happened in a matter of weeks during an election; I rest my case.
	The ombudsman's report concludes:
	"There was of course no excuse for the actions of those detainees involved in the disturbance and the suffering and damage they caused. I have concluded, however, that what occurred at Yarl's Wood was the result of a series of decisions taken over the previous three years."
	There has been no apology from the Home Office since the report became public. There have been no expressions of regret, or any determination to come to the House to give an explanation. I put it to the House that the people who were disturbed at Yarl's Wood, those who had their lives threatened and the taxpayers who face a massive bill deserve nothing less than an apology and a full explanation of how the situation occurred.

Mike Gapes: I wish to talk about the situation in Iraq. The Prime Minister is currently in Baghdad and has spoken about the situation there today. He said:
	"I'm sure that there are parts of Iraq that are very much calmer but here in Baghdad you feel the sense of the challenge and the difficulty that there is."
	I was in one of the calmer parts of Iraq with the Defence Committee 10 days ago. It was my second visit to Basra in the past seven months, and I shall give the House my   impressions of what I saw in Basra, Umm Qasr and   Shaiba, at the al-Basra oil terminal and on HMS   Marlborough, which is protecting it. I do so having strongly supported military action in 2003, having campaigned for regime change in Iraq for 25 years, and having one of my best Iraqi friends, Barham Salih, as Deputy Prime Minister. I knew him when he was in exile in this country. As the representative of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, he spoke at a meeting I organised in Ilford in 1990.
	I have a long commitment to political change in Iraq, but the events since the liberation have not gone as I   predicted. I have to be honest and say that the situation is far more difficult than I thought it would be a year or more after we acted. Before anyone who was against the action jumps to any conclusion, I want to clarify that I would still support that action today, because the situation is infinitely better for the Iraqi people than it would have been under a continuation of Saddam's regime.
	When we were in Iraq 10 days ago, the Committee met a large number of Iraqis. We also spent a great deal of time with the British forces serving there. We met members of the Prince of Wales's Regiment, the Black Watch and many others from all three services. My admiration for members of our armed forces increases every time I meet them and see what they are doing and the circumstances under which they serve. I also want to mention their allies. I was driven around by a Danish captain of the DanBat—the Danish Battalion. Its personnel are doing an excellent job alongside our people in Iraq. It is important to recognise that: not only the British are serving in Iraq.
	Economically, the situation in Basra is probably no better than it was in May. We could still see the legacy of 35 years of neglect, under-investment and decay. I have been to the west bank and Gaza. In 1989 to 1990, I   visited parts of the former Soviet Union, including the Baltic states, where there was a sense that nothing had been painted, invested in or improved for many years. Southern Iraq is like that. It is not a direct consequence of the war against Iran or of the two wars of 1991 and 2003. It is part of a systematic sustained policy of under-investment and suffering of the people in the south.
	However, because the Committee had the opportunity, which we did not have in May, to leave the   military vehicles and walk around Basra, we saw a huge amount of goods on sale in the markets and shops. There is a massive increase in imports. Nothing is manufactured in Iraq; everything is imported, from Kuwait or Jordan. Lorries move goods all the time from neighbouring states.
	We were told that demand for electricity has doubled since 2003 because of the white goods that have been bought. The tragedy is that although the electricity supply has increased, the impact of terrorism means that the availability of electricity has been cut in the south. There was a period in which people had up to 17 hours of electricity a day, which was much better than they got under Saddam. Electricity in Basra province is now available for about four hours on, 20 hours off. That is not because of the impact of terrorist and insurgent actions in the south, but because of the national grid system. Electricity is diverted from the south to Baghdad and other places because important power lines, in particular those near Falluja, were blown up. It takes weeks to replace them because of the steel and the skilled workers that are needed to put them back.
	Oil production has increased. It is up to about 1.8 million barrels a day. That is quite a lot, but Iraq hopes to get to 3.7 million by 2007. Some 93 per cent. of the Iraqi Government's revenue comes from oil. Iraq has the potential not to be a poor country. It could be very wealthy, but its people do not work in the way that we understand it, because the system was built on a form of state control. Food, electricity and water—everything, in fact—was controlled. The legacy of a Stalinist, fascist, Ba'athist system was total control. The private sector was almost non-existent and all the goods on sale were imported, except fruit and other things that could be grown in the country. It will take years—possibly decades—to transform the country so that it becomes a modern dynamic economy.
	We are doing important work in the south. The quick impact projects of the British Army are making a big difference, but there are problems. The American Congress voted more than $18 billion to fund reconstruction in Iraq. About 10 to 20 per cent. of that is spent on security. Huge amounts are going to consultancies. About $3 billion has been diverted from water and electricity projects to security sector reform because of the impact of the internal opposition combined with the insurrectionists from outside.
	Iraq's borders are porous. No armed forces or police service existed following the collapse of Ba'athism. We have to start from scratch. The Committee saw the excellent work by our people from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and from forces based in Sussex and elsewhere who were seconded there. Those serving policemen and women are doing a great job. I hope that their police authorities will not take short-sighted decisions to withdraw them, which is the case in some parts of the country, when their job is so vital over the next few months. A number of police forces are asking people not to renew their contracts and are bringing them back from Iraq at exactly the moment when their work is so vital. We also saw the training of the Iraqi national guard and the way in which its personnel are being prepared for the future.
	The elections will be on 30 January—or at least it is hoped that they will be held then; there could be technical arguments about a possible delay. The overwhelming view in the south is that the elections must go ahead. People are enthusiastic about them and want greater control of their affairs. I met the governor of Basra province. Elected members and others from the   Basra provincial council were also present. No one   believes that the international community should leave immediately after the January elections. On the contrary, those elections are for a constitutional assembly and provincial government, but the final election that will determine the democracy of the country is scheduled for December 2005. After that, there will, we hope, be a fulfilment of total democratic control within Iraq.
	The Iraqis need support for security, infrastructure and training. My assessment—this is my message to Ministers—is that, just as in Bosnia and in Kosovo, we are talking about a commitment not of one or two years but of several years. We need to be honest and say that we started this process and we have to see it through.
	We and our allies in the international community have to do far more. There is not enough support from our Government going into the south of Iraq; we need to do more through the Department for International Development, which, I understand, has hardly any presence in the south, being mainly based in Kuwait and Jordan. The United Nations currently has only three people in Basra; we need far more support from the UN. As was emphasised to us throughout our visit, Basra and the south are not Baghdad. The BBC does not have any journalists in the area, so we do not get the truth: the south of Iraq is doing well and it needs further support.

Angela Browning: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Front-Bench Members for the fact that I will not be in my place for the winding-up speeches. Unfortunately, I have a speaking engagement this evening which was made before we knew the date of the Christmas Adjournment.
	Before the House rises for Christmas I would like to draw its attention to a situation that has emerged in light of the Iraq war but has wider implications for the functioning of this Chamber. I am talking about ministerial accountability, and in particular the accountability of the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. We frequently hear Members raising, on a point of order, their dissatisfaction with answers, both oral and written. That applies as much to answers given to this House by the Prime Minister as it does to those given by other Ministers.
	Quite properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whenever we stray into that territory, you remind the House that responses by Front-Bench Members are not a matter for the Chair, but I want to raise this afternoon the situation that we now face in light of the statements made to the Chamber in the run-up to the Iraq war and what we now see as the impotence of Back-Bench Members in holding the Prime Minister to account and obtaining from him answers to specific questions. I know of this from my own experience, having asked him about what has become known as the dodgy dossier. He did not answer my question, so I tried to extract a specific answer by repeating it in a written question, which was referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It then waited several months before answering, and I had to badger it several times before I got a reply, and a very unsatisfactory one at that: it basically said that the Foreign Office thought that I had had an adequate reply the first time.
	Sometimes we all shrug our shoulders and ask, "Is the Prime Minister Teflon-coated? How come he manages not to answer questions and to get away with things?" That is very frustrating for Back Benchers. However, the matters that led up to this country's going to war in Iraq are serious ones, and they set many precedents. It is unsatisfactory that Members of this Chamber have not had a chance to question the Prime Minister fully on the outcomes of the inquiries that have taken place since we went to war and on the information that has come to light since he made his many statements to this House.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman quite properly identifies an important matter, but it is only one—there are many, many more questions to which hon. Members would like specific answers from the Prime Minister.
	Having given way to the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done—and the way that he has gone about it—to bring together the   documentation, including legal opinion, that is encapsulated on page 309 of today's Order Paper. Motion 37, "Conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the war against Iraq", has been signed by several Members of Parliament, some of whom are present this afternoon. I hope that the procedures of the House mean that, in due course, we will have an opportunity to discuss in some detail the contents of that motion. It seems quite improper that those events have passed yet the procedures of the House do not allow us to question the Prime Minister personally and get answers from him.

Angela Browning: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I live in the west country, where we are used to the funny ways of the Liberal Democrats. I do not hold it   against the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler); I just share his frustration because, whether we take his amendment or the motion on the Order Paper, we have made no progress, and the purpose of my raising the matter today is to say that it is imperative that we make progress.
	It is clear from the Butler inquiry that what needs to be investigated is not the Cabinet or the Government but the actions and words of the Prime Minister. During the lead-up to the Iraq war, matters in Cabinet were not dealt with by collective responsibility, which all of us in the House understand, but there was government by cabal. It would therefore be improper to have, for example, a motion of no confidence in the Government, because the responsibility lies with the Prime Minister personally. That is why I support colleagues throughout the House who seek, through the motion, to have the Prime Minister's conduct investigated with a view to seeing whether a Committee of the House believes that it is appropriate to impeach him.
	That is the only option left to us because, under the rules of the House, it is not possible for any of us to challenge the propriety of what the Prime Minister said on the record in the House. The rules of the House work on the assumption that we are all honourable Members, but I am afraid that that leaves those of us on the Back   Benches at a distinct disadvantage. We are dishonourable if we challenge somebody for not being honourable themselves, but there is no way in which we can call them to account if there is evidence that their conduct needs to be investigated.
	There is a catch-22—one that works against the ability of Back Benchers to call the Executive— the Government and the Prime Minister—to account. Let me quote from one effort made to sort out the situation, although it clearly has not been sorted out. On   page 120 of "The Challenge for Parliament: Making   Government Accountable" the Hansard Society Commission refers to a statement that was produced by the Public Service Committee in March 1997 and put into the ministerial code in May 1997. It emphasises that
	"Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and . . . it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
	Well, I expect that to include the Prime Minister himself. Although he has the duty of ensuring that the ministerial code is adhered to, he too is bound by it and should be seen to be bound by it. There has to be some mechanism whereby the House can hold the Prime Minister to account.
	To allow those events simply to pass into history would be to set a dangerous precedent for this country. The circumstances in which we went to war need to be fully investigated, because if we find ourselves in that situation again, it is imperative that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister of the day, recognise that what happened before was not acceptable to the House of Commons and to many of its Back Benchers. We Back Benchers have to have a mechanism whereby we can call the Prime Minister to the Chamber to ask him or her straight questions and to receive straight answers in return, especially on matters of such importance. There seems to be no such mechanism at present.
	I shall not discuss the detail of impeachment because I realise that it has not been used for a long time, but that does not mean that it should not be available to Members of Parliament. In our lifetimes, we have seen impeachment proceedings used against two American presidents, and those proceedings are based on English law. It is extraordinary that that should happen across the Atlantic but we in this Chamber are unable to exercise that right. I realise that people take a partisan attitude, but the issue is not only about the Iraq war and the present Prime Minister; it is about this Chamber, this Parliament and this democracy.

Alice Mahon: No, I shall not take interventions.
	What is left of the health service in Iraq estimates that only about 5,000 have been killed. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all those estimates.
	To go to Basra and the green zone, as the Prime Minister has done today, in relative safety is not to visit Iraq. I would like to have seen the Prime Minister talk to some of the refugees. Where are the estimates for the number of dead in Falluja? The battle in Falluja is the   battle that we have not been allowed to see—the hidden battle. It is the battle that was going to bring democracy to Iraq, so I have a few questions. What is   happening there? Where are the 200,000 or 300,000 refugees who have left the city? Why are there no pictures of the people still living in Falluja, some in extremely bad conditions? What kind of weapons were used in Falluja? The Americans admitted using a substance similar to napalm when the invasion began and we have heard stories from certain people and bodies, including Reuters, who have been in the city that such dreadful weapons have been deployed there. I have tried to get answers here, but to no avail. Al-Jazeera was banned before the second battle for Falluja, so one reliable source from which we got information before has gone—[Interruption.] It is a reliable source—at least we saw pictures. Where are the sources now? What reports are we seeing about the injured? All we see now is extremely sketchy reports from Reuters.
	A report published on 16 December by an American journalist, Michael Schwartz, talks about Falluja. He writes:
	"The chilling reality of what Falluja has become is only now seeping out, as the American military continues to block almost all access to the city, whether to reporters, its former residents, or aid groups like the Red Crescent Society."
	He goes on to give sinister details—I tabled an early-day motion on the subject and I urge hon. Members to read it. He says that if residents are allowed back,
	"Entry and exit from the city will be restricted. According to General Sattler, only five roads into the city will remain open. The rest will be blocked"
	by mounds of earth.
	"Checkpoints will be established at . . . the five entry points, manned by US troops, and everyone entering will be 'photographed, fingerprinted and have iris scans taken before being issued ID cards.' Though Sattler reassured American reporters that the process would only take 10 minutes, the implication is that entry and exit from the city will depend solely on valid ID cards".
	It will be compulsory for citizens to wear a badge. This is equivalent to creating a ghetto. It has sinister overtones for someone of my generation who read and learned a great deal about the ghettos that the Nazis established. This is not bringing democracy to the people of Falluja. It is an insult to anybody who thinks about Falluja. Captain Paul Batty of the 3rd Battalion of the Marines has said that people might be returning on Christmas eve. Only male citizens will be allowed in, in limited numbers.
	The US is offering $500 for every house that has been destroyed. There are suggestions coming from the general responsible that there should be compulsory work details and that people will have to clear the rubble that now is Falluja, if we are to believe eye-witness reports.
	Who will take over when the Americans pull out? They say that they want to do so by 15 February. Will the under-equipped and demoralised security forces, who are mainly Shi'a in Sunni areas, take over? What has happened to the refugees? I dug out a little information from Reuters. It appears that 13,000 refugees have set up camp on the bank of the Euphrates, at a place that was a resort. Apparently they are sheltering there. They are trying to keep warm but they are left without warm clothes because they had to leave quickly, and there is very little heating. Reuters managed to get out that information.
	The Red Cross reported that bodies were piled up and decomposing and that there was widespread structural damage—no power, no water and raw sewage. It reports that no hospitals are functioning and that houses have been flattened. It would have been good if the Select Committee and the Prime Minister had visited some of those areas.
	I asked about Falluja before the battle. I asked whether what has been described was equivalent to a strategy to democratise Iraq. Is it the strategy to bomb the Iraqis of Falluja into submission and leave behind a flattened city? If it is, it did not work. The uprising moved to Mosul. All the police stations were shut down while the so-called allies were bombing Iraq.
	We need some answers to what has been done in our name in Iraq. We need to know what is happening about the elections because clearly the citizens of Falluja will not be able to participate meaningfully in an election. I   believe that the answer is to call a special emergency United Nations conference with every member country being present. Appeals should be made to the Muslim countries to participate in Iraq. We should set a timetable for the coalition to come out of Iraq because we now represent the problem rather than the solution.
	After seeing the deliberate execution of an unarmed combatant—a wounded Iraqi—on my television screen, I believe that some sort of war crimes tribunal should be set up. Let us swap what the Americans did in Falluja with what it was claimed the Serbs were doing in Kosovo, where the media was present and we could see things. In that instance a war crimes tribunal was set up. I hear nobody screaming for justice for innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed in large numbers.
	I make no apology for going against my Government on Iraq. I think that I was right. I think also that there will have to be some answers at some stage and that some people will have to accept guilt.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that but this is not a laughing matter. My constituent is beside herself with anger. She has regaled the story to her local councillor, who happens to serve on the police authority. The councillor tried to raise the matter over the weekend with the police. She was told, when she got through to somebody working for Dorset police—she told her the story—"What I would be concerned about is that this is a lady who sleeps in her bedroom with a knife." It was almost as if that person was working to a   script. It seems that the Government have created a police force that is more concerned about people having a knife in their bedroom than about arresting people who intrude into somebody's house in the middle of the night.
	We are outraged about this situation. How is it that Miss Miller's intruder is not facing any penalty? When I discussed the matter with Miss Miller on the phone, she said, slightly facetiously, that if the intruder was drunk, which is now being alleged, although he was perfectly capable of making a mobile phone call to his wife at home, apparently, why was he not given a fixed penalty notice, which we have been hearing about. Perhaps the Minister will explain what one has to do to qualify for such a notice, if someone does not get one when he goes, drunk, into a complete stranger's house at 3 am on a Saturday.
	I hope that the case will be reviewed by the police. I   have raised it in the Chamber with the authority of my constituent, Miss Miller, who is determined that something effective should be done as a deterrent to others and as a punishment for the person who came into her house and disturbed her peace, and in so doing caused her an enormous amount of upset.
	The intruder got into the house through the back door. He certainly did not get in through the front door. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence. One of my constituents is a 63-year-old hotel night manager, who lives in Christchurch. The front page of the Daily Echo on 5 May 2004 reported under the headline "Man left in pool of blood" that this gentleman had been assaulted. He had suffered severe injuries. He had a broken nose and he had to have eight stitches put in his head. He was off work for two or three weeks. He was the victim of an assault in the early hours of the morning in a Bournemouth hotel, where he was the night porter.
	Some of the other people in the hotel gave the name and address of the perpetrator to the police. Apparently the local police told the Metropolitan police to take some action against the assailant. Nothing happened. After many months my constituent came to share his concern with me. As a result of that, I put pressure on the chief constable to tell us what was happening. She admitted—it was a female chief constable at the time—that the details were not put on the police national computer. It has emerged that although the assailant was living at a fixed address in the home counties, where he could have been arrested for this serious office, he is now believed to be living in Germany.
	That is an example of another one who got away. Yesterday evening I spoke to my constituent's wife, who said, "This is the first time in 40 years of marriage that we have had anything to do with the police. We are absolutely amazed. The police always expect us to help, and indeed we are very willing to help them, but as soon as we want some help from them, it doesn't seem as though there's any reciprocity." That is the impact of the incident.
	There is another incident that I should like to share with the House. A garage proprietor in Christchurch was the victim of identity fraud. He lost about £1,500, which was one of the criminal offences that finally put him out of business. The perpetrator absconded, but this autumn was arrested for drink-driving. The complaint that the garage proprietor had made was linked with that criminal. As a result, the police contacted my constituent and said that they would like to re-interview him about the offence. But they never did that. He complained and has been told that the Crown Prosecution Service regards the matter as not worth bothering with—a fraud that resulted in my constituent eventually going out of business.
	I know it is trite and commonplace to say that the Government say one thing and do another, but even by their standards it is hard to equate what happened to that constituent with what the Solicitor-General told the House on 2 December, when she said that the House would welcome
	"the new guidance on policing priorities for fraud cases that the Home Office sent out, which says that, even if the sum involved is small, if the effect on the small business victim is large, it should be a priority for police investigation and prosecution."—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 779]
	That case was not a priority at all. Sadly, the man has lost his business.
	The same man was subjected to another crime earlier this year—he has had a bit of bad luck under this Government—when he was the victim of road rage on the road alongside Bournemouth international airport. He contacted the police by telephone while the road rage incident was taking place. When he arrived at the traffic lights at West Parley, he was still in conversation with the police, who said that he should stay firm in his car as the potential assailant got out of their car and approached him. My constituent decided that it was better to be safe than sorry and drove off, but having given the full details of the assailant to the police, he was pretty certain in his own mind that there would be a quick arrest and prosecution to follow.
	No way has that happened. The police made some inquiries. The person who was driving the car at the time denied that there was a passenger present, so it was my constituent's word against theirs. That was the end of the matter until my constituent was at those self-same traffic lights a few weeks back and recognised the driver of the car in that incident. The driver gave him a V-sign, indicating that she and her friend had got away with a serious criminal offence.
	The Government have a policy of driving people into crime. My constituent, Mr. Ali, is an asylum seeker who came to this country from Iran in June 2000. He has lost three appeals against refusal to grant asylum. He has been working as a welder, paying his own way and taxes. At the end of November he was summoned to the immigration and nationality directorate, given an ID card with his date of birth and reference number stamped on it and "Employment Prohibited" marked against it. He is not to be deported, apparently, but he is being forced into the black economy because he is not allowed to work. He is effectively being forced into a life of crime. What a ludicrous policy the Government are presiding over.
	There is a gaping credibility gap between so much of what the Government say and what is happening on the   ground. I could regale the House with many other examples but I do not have time to do so. The cases that I have highlighted show what a pig's ear the Government have made of policy on law and order, asylum and immigration since 1997. [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House seems to be arguing from the Front Bench, but I cannot hear what he is saying. Perhaps I can give him a final example. Somebody who ordered a passport was assured by the Passport Office that it would be delivered by secure delivery. When the passport did not arrive, he complained and was told that secure delivery means that the passport is handed to a firm of couriers who will deposit it through the letterbox without identifying the recipient. So he is now likely to be the victim of identity fraud.
	The Government speak about joined-up law and order, but they are presiding over a pig's ear of a mess. I would like to present the Minister with a pig's ear as a modest little Christmas present from the people of Christchurch. I will not throw it, as the Chief Whip threw a book from the Government Benches, but I will make it available to the Minister to chew over, so to speak, over the vacation.

David Borrow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the Christmas Adjournment debate. There are three or four local issues that I wish to raise.The first concerns my early-day motion 170, which I laid before the House after the suicide of my constituent Sarah Cherry, following her involvement over the internet with Amazon book company, through which she obtained a copy of the book "Final Exit", which gives details of how to commit suicide. It was a tragic case. She had also been involved in some of the suicide chat rooms. The local community in my part of Lancashire is extremely concerned about the circumstances. My local evening paper, the Lancashire Evening Post, has been running a campaign to raise with parents and teachers the concerns that many of us have about access to internet chat rooms and to the book.
	My concern is that vulnerable young people are the group most at risk of suicide. If they can easily get access to websites or books which make it easier for them to commit suicide and seem to suggest that that is a good thing to do, rather than linking them with organisations such as the Samaritans, we will see more tragic cases like that of my constituent. Since my local paper ran the campaign, several other instances in the locality have come to light of young people who committed suicide as a result of access to suicide chat rooms.
	We have been able to persuade Lancashire county council to remove the book from its bookshelves. We have also persuaded some internet providers to close some of the chat rooms or introduce links from chat rooms to the Samaritans. It is an issue that Ministers need to consider seriously. Although I accept that it may not be appropriate to ban the book altogether, we should do all we can to ensure that it is not easily accessible to our vulnerable young people. Too many have committed suicide because no one was there to put them in touch with the right support mechanisms.
	My second point is another constituency issue and concerns the reorganisation of regiments announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last week. I and many other Lancashire MPs have long been involved with our local regiments—in my case, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. In the west Pennines there is also the King's Own Royal Border Regiment and the King's Regiment. As I understand it, those regiments reached agreement that if there were to be a merger, the name of the new regiment would be the Royal Lancashire Regiment. Indeed, an early-day motion on that matter has been signed by many MPs in the area, who also wrote to the Secretary of State to reinforce the point.
	It now emerges that when the Army Board considered what recommendation to make to the Secretary of State, it did not agree that the new regiment should be named the Royal Lancashire Regiment. Rather, it came up with the name of the King's Lancashire and Border Regiment. About 90 per cent. of recruits for the new regiment come from the historic county of Lancashire, and many of us are keen, if we are to give the new regiment the best possible start on recruitment and reinforce local identity, to keep the name a simple one that reflects the history of our area. The Royal Lancashire Regiment was agreed by the three regiments, as I said, and I am very concerned to see that that name has not now been adopted. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would listen to further representations from Lancashire Members on this particular point.
	I have a plaudit for my right hon. Friend. I was able to visit Warton with a number of colleagues on Friday, when my right hon. Friend announced the formal signing of the second tranche of the Eurofighter, under which 89 planes will be built. The order is worth £4.3 billion and will secure 16,000 jobs. That is crucial in my part of Lancashire, where thousands of people are employed in the aerospace industry.
	While thanking my right hon. Friend for making that order, I also want to make the point that the aerospace industry depends in many ways on the existence of the   Department of Trade and Industry. The Export Credits Guarantee Department system is crucial to the industry's success in being able to secure export orders. Without the DTI and that system, many of the export orders would not go ahead, which would mean the loss of thousands of jobs. During my seven and a half years in the House, I have lobbied on several occasions, on behalf of the aerospace industry, for launch aid from the DTI for various rounds of the Airbus expansion. Again, without that launch aid from the DTI, the expansion and success of the Airbus would not have taken place.
	It needs to be said in the House—I shall certainly ensure that it is mentioned to my constituents in Lancashire—that it would be a mistake to adopt the Liberal Democrat policy of abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry and spending the money elsewhere. At a time when the economy is doing well it may seem unimportant, but it would undermine the long-term security of employment in areas such as mine. I am sure that my constituents will think very seriously before risking their livelihoods by voting Lib Dem in the general election.
	Finally, I want to talk about one of the key horticultural areas of the United Kingdom. The area around the villages of Banks, Hesketh Bank and Tarleton in my constituency has for many generations been the heart of the Lancashire horticultural industry. Hundreds of acres are under glass and there are also acres and acres of top-class field vegetables grown there. Traditionally, they have been good working agricultural villages based on smallholdings run by families. The products are delivered to Preston wholesale market and then distributed more widely.
	Over the past 30 years, the character of those villages has completely changed. New properties have been built by people who do not work in the area for people who do not work in the area, but commute out of it. Also, supermarkets have changed the way in which they procure produce and now prefer a limited number of producers. That has brought about consolidation in the industry, with the result that the number of people employed in it has changed. Instead of a handful of family members, there are now some cases of firms with more than 300 people working in them.
	The seasonal nature of the business has traditionally allowed school pupils to support it during the summer, accompanied by some overseas seasonal workers when   things get particularly difficult. The season in Lancashire runs from February to November on the basis of full employment and virtually all the demand for seasonal labour comes from overseas. The supermarkets now demand that production goes on for 12 months of the year, and that what is grown is put in nice little plastic bags. As a result, all the farms have to have packaging houses, and they import produce from overseas to ensure continuity of production.
	Hundreds of people in my area now work on farms all   year round. It is an area of full employment, where fairly expensive detached properties are increasingly common. People who want to work in the industries to which I have referred can no longer afford to live in the area, and that means that the vast majority of workers come from overseas. Traditionally, such workers have been housed in caravans in the green belt, even though that is against planning policy. Recently, one grower wanted to convert a large building in Gravel lane in Banks to house about 40 young Polish workers. Those workers had no record of antisocial or inappropriate behaviour, but the community is a small one, with only 40 or 50 properties. To put 40 workers with no connection with the area in a single building does not seem ideal.
	I hope that the Government will ensure that planning policy achieves a proper balance in respect of residential property needed to meet the needs of local businesses and their local or overseas workers. At present, there is almost no affordable or rented property in any of the villages that I have mentioned. Employers have to go to places such as Skelmersdale, Preston and Leyland to   recruit UK workers, and then they have to bus those workers to my area. Otherwise, they have to rely on workers from Poland, South Africa, Namibia and other parts of the world.
	I want to place on the record my concern about how planning policy is developing in the villages. The planning authority recently produced new guidelines for housing migrant workers. That is an improvement, as the aim is to concentrate housing developments in permanent buildings on the farms. At present, workers are housed in caravans scattered around the fields, or in properties purchased or built a long way away from the farms. That is a problem.
	We must get right the balance between development for residential purposes and what needs to be put in place for businesses. These are agricultural businesses, and in my part of Lancashire the idea that farms involve only a handful of people who work across a large area is no longer tenable. There are probably 1,000 people who work on farms in the villages to which I have referred, yet the total population is only about 10,000. Most of those workers are wage earners rather than owner-managers. That may be unusual, but it raises specific planning problems that I should like the Government to address.

Bob Russell: The abuse of the planning process by local councils is an issue to which the Government need to give urgent attention. Public confidence in local councils when it come to determining planning applications is seriously undermined when the   local council is the applicant or the beneficiary—that is, where it has a vested interest to push something through in the face of overwhelming public opposition. I therefore hope that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will hold a full public planning inquiry into proposals for the St. Botolph's quarter in Colchester, an area to the south and east of Britain's oldest recorded town. It lies on either side of the Roman wall, which has been a dominant feature for more than 2,000 years.
	Few would deny that urban regeneration of the area is needed. However, it is the manner in which the borough council, in particular, has proceeded—with the backing of Essex county council—that has caused so much outcry. It is no exaggeration to say that the borough council is making things up as it goes along—or, to be more accurate, that it is dancing to whatever tune is being played by a property developer based in Yorkshire. Town hall secrecy is such that even the majority of councillors are not being told what is going on, let alone the general public.
	In June 2003, the council issued what it described as the "St Botolph's Quarter Masterplan Document". Even though that document was claimed to be
	"the result of 12 months' research, analysis and design work and stakeholder consultation",
	such was its usefulness that within months it was, in effect, torn up. More than £100,000 of public money had been invested in that document.
	Next, in July this year, came the "Revised Draft   Masterplan—Proposed Supplementary Planning Document", which bore very little resemblance to what had been put forward originally. The council has yet to determine what its next move will be, but in effect the second document has also found its way into the shredder. A third set of proposals—it is likely that there will not be three but any number into double figures—is being drawn up in secret. That is being done not by the council, however, but by the property development company with which the council is in league, but whose identity has deliberately not been revealed to local people. Among those kept in the dark are most councillors and, it would appear, the local strategic partnership, Colchester 2020.
	The council did go through the pretence of public consultation, as a box-ticking exercise. Public opinion, however, has been ignored—indeed, the whole thing was a charade. Residents have been deceived. We know that all along it was not the people of Colchester with whom the council was in conversation, but a company with share capital of £1,000, which was formed only last year. Conservative Councillor Robert Davidson, deputy leader of the council and portfolio holder for regeneration, was quoted in the Essex County Standard on 10 December as saying:
	"We talked to the developers privately for two years to make sure the resulting planning application would include the right benefits and community facilities for the town."
	Quite simply, while the council was going through the pretence of showing plans and the so-called public consultation, it was going behind the backs of the people of Colchester and holding secret talks with property developers of whom the public had no knowledge. The pieces of the jigsaw shown to the public were not the   same as those in the jigsaw box that the council handed over to the property developers who are driving the agenda. Indeed, the developers are designing their own jigsaw.
	From what little has found its way into local newspapers, we know that the developers are working on alternative scheme plan 18b of what to do with the buses following closure of the Queen street bus station. That is a further reason why a public planning inquiry is needed. The future of the town's bus services cannot be left to the mercy of a here today, gone tomorrow property developer and a council cabinet of whom only one of the eight members lives in the town, and not one of whom I have ever seen on a service bus.
	The only thing that has remained unchanged from the council's original proposals is the closure of the Queen street bus station. Two years ago, it was claimed that the site was needed for a £16.5 million visual arts facility, most of which would come from external public funding sources. It is now proposed that the arts gallery needs only a corner of the site. The latest plans show the gallery being erected on the site of a scheduled ancient monument, and the designers claim that it can be built without foundations. It will be interesting to see how they get around national building regulations, and how   English Heritage will react in future to those around the country who will no doubt use the Colchester example to build on other sites of scheduled ancient monuments.
	Local people are divided about the visual arts facility, although a clear majority are opposed to the current proposals, particularly when council tax payers will be required to pay around £300,000 every year to cover the projected operating losses, assuming that the promoters attract the number of visitors for which they are budgeting. Various surveys of public opinion have all shown majority support for keeping the bus station broadly on its present site in Queen street. They range from support of 64 per cent. in a recent poll by one newspaper to 94 per cent. in one by another. Last year, I carried out a random sample survey of the electorate that showed that 82 per cent. wanted the bus station to stay where it is. It is nice to know that I am in step with public opinion, and that the Conservatives in Colchester are not. The all-Tory Cabinet, including my likely opponent at the general election, wants to shut the bus station and sell the site for development. As an aside, let me say that Labour in Colchester supports me on this issue.
	The Queen street site is big enough for both the bus station and a visual arts facility of sensible size, designed to fit the character of an historic town. It would not need such a huge annual subsidy from council tax payers. The existing bus station does need improving, but that could easily be funded by section 106 agreements from the proposed commercial development in the Vineyard and Osborne street area of the St. Botolph's quarter. It just needs good leadership from the council to achieve that.
	A sustainable visual arts gallery could occupy the frontage of Queen street, where there are two ugly 1960s   buildings, which, by some happy coincidence, the borough council now owns. I want to inform the House of the manner in which that happened.About two years ago the council tried to buy one, if not both, buildings, which are joined. Although I gather that they were not   on the open market, it would appear that the council was gazumped by a company called CFK Developments, or CFK Investments, of 20 Park place, Leeds. It is my understanding that the council offered just under £1 million for one of the buildings. A few months later, according to the council's annual accounts for 2003–04, it paid CFK Investments £3,443,955 for the two buildings. It seems that CFK made something of a killing.
	The last financial year, according to the council's accounts, reveals that the council was involved in a somewhat interesting transaction whereby it used public funds to purchase land in Vineyard street for £256,630 via Martin Elliot & Co, presumably a firm of solicitors, and then sold the same piece of land for the same price to a firm of solicitors called Kelly & Co, the   address of which, by a happy coincidence, is the same as the registered address of CFK Developments in Leeds. In all my years in public life, I have never come across a council getting involved in property transactions in this way and using public funds to facilitate the aspirations of a private company.
	Also in the last financial year the accounts show that the council sold to CFK Investments, for £650,000, the Kwik-Fit premises in Osborne street, which the council had bought in the past because it forms a crucial part of the landholding for the entire redevelopment of the Vineyard Gate area. I have not been able to find any evidence that the council put this property on to the market or sought competitive quotes, a process which in all my 34 years of holding elected office has always been carried out in accordance with local government best practice and legislation.
	A search of Companies House shows that last year a company was formed to take forward development proposals for that part of St Botolph's quarter now known as Vineyard Gate. This company takes the name Vineyard Gate Developments Ltd. Its registered offices are at Calder Grange, Knottingley, West Yorkshire. This company is a joint venture between Caddick Developments Ltd, of the same address, and CFK Developments Ltd of 20 Park Place, Leeds.
	At the time CFK acquired the Kwik-Fit premises, it is   my understanding that neither CFK nor Vineyard Gate Developments owned any sites or property in the Vineyard Gate area, and if they did, it still left the   borough council by far the largest landowner in this important redevelopment area, which will form a continuation of the central shopping area. The council had all the key playing cards to determine how the area should be developed.
	To the best of my knowledge, the council did not offer for consideration to other potential property developers the fact that it was interested in working in partnership for a major development of this part of the town centre. I contrast this with the way the council, openly and without any secrecy, dealt with other town centre redevelopment projects at Lion walk in the early 1970s and Culver square in the mid-1980s. The council claims that all that it is doing in the St Botolph's quarter is adopting supplementary planning guidance. However, what we are witnessing is a total rewrite, on a blank piece of paper, by the Yorkshire developer.
	It was only in March this year that the Colchester borough local plan was officially adopted by the council. Yet even before it was signed, let alone before the ink was dry, the council was embarking—in secret debate with a single developer—on what can only be described as a totally different set of proposals for the Vineyard Gate area; and, in the area of the Queen street bus station, with promoters of the visual arts facility, on a location and design which bears no relation to the original masterplan proposals.
	In respect of supplementary planning guidance, the advice that I have been given by the House of Commons Library, quoting from the Government planning policy guidance on development plans—PPG12—is that it states quite clearly:
	"Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) does not form a part of the Plan. It can take the form of design guides or areadevelopment briefs, or supplement other specific policies in a plan.  . . . SPG should be prepared in consultation with the general public, businesses and other interested parties, and their views should be taken into account before it is finalised."
	I hope that I have said sufficient to convince the Deputy Prime Minister that every aspect of the St Botolph's redevelopment proposals in Colchester, ranging from the visual arts gallery being built on the site of a scheduled ancient monument to whatever plan emerges for the Vineyard Gate development, should be put before a public planning inquiry so that people and organisations with an interest have the opportunity to express their opinions. That the council has behaved in a secretive way is obvious. There has not been transparency. The public have been misled. Only a public planning inquiry will retrieve the situation.

Tony Colman: I have two issues to raise in this Christmas Adjournment debate. They are disparate, but linked by the need for democratic accountability. I have requested Adjournment debates throughout the autumn period, but I have been unsuccessful in the weekly ballots.
	I start by thanking and congratulating the Department of Transport on the lead role it took at the   recent International Civil Aviation Organisation general assembly in ensuring the right of European states, including the UK, to set appropriate tax, emissions charging and trading regimes to control and reduce worrying greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft. I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 412 on aviation and climate change, which addresses that issue.
	For my constituents in Putney, the Christmas break and the subsequent reduction in the number of planes landing and taking off at Heathrow airport over south-west London offers at least some partial relief from the everyday intrusion of annoying aircraft noise. Like many of my constituents, I have read—and re-read—the Government's air transport White Paper, searching for signs that aircraft noise at Heathrow will be controlled and reduced and that local air quality will improve permanently in the future.
	Unfortunately, as hon. Members will already know and acknowledge, despite there being a limit of 480,000 flights annually at BAA plc's largest airport, the White Paper makes it clear that the Government are investigating doing away with runway alternation, which at the moment offers some relief for those who live around Heathrow. My constituents understand and rely on the small but welcome noise reduction that that operational procedure allows and are totally against its removal.
	The Department for Transport has also, I am informed, set up a team called project Heathrow, which is examining ways of facilitating and ensuring the construction of the proposed third runway to the north of the existing airport. That runway would in fact be a whole new airport, requiring substantial terminal facilities. Although tough legal, EU-based local air quality limits appear to make that proposal difficult to conceive, my constituents find it hard to understand just why the Department for Transport is acting as air quality consultants, airport logistical planners, ground transport planners and overall strategic consultants for the expansion of Heathrow beyond limits agreed through the planning process for terminal 5. Will BAA plc be sent the substantial bill for all that departmental effort? And can we be told exactly how much "project expand Heathrow" is costing?
	Perhaps even more importantly, the close symbiotic relationship between the Department for Transport and the aircraft and airline industry that it promotes robs my constituents of any independent, unbiased oversight of the Department's work programme, often described by those civil servants involved as "delivering the White Paper". I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there might be a case for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs taking over the policing of the air industry from the Department for Transport, to ensure the independence that my constituents would like to see in consideration of the expansion of Heathrow.
	The White Paper is due for review during 2006. Will the Government promise to look thoroughly, perhaps through an independently led inquiry, at the need to strengthen the oversight and audit procedures, about which I am extremely concerned? As matters stand, the development of Heathrow appears to be unchecked and unchallenged.
	My final concern on this first point is the thorny question of night flights. For many of thoseliving in Putney night noise from aircraft is a painful intrusion akin to nightly torture. There was a mass meeting in   Putney Methodist church in November, attended by   many hundreds of my constituents, desperate to ensure that night flights are abolished. I congratulate Wandsworth council on organising that meeting. A similar meeting was also held in Battersea. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) in his place and I know he was at that meeting, which was equally well attended and at which opposition to night flights into Heathrow was equally strong.
	At the moment the Department for Transport seems unable to respond adequately to the need to begin to reduce night flights for entirely valid public health reasons. The ultimate authority on sleep disturbance and community noise exposure is the World Health Organisation, as the Department finally acknowledged in its most recent night flight consultation exercise. But the Department somehow managed to miss a seminal WHO quotation from the 1999 consultation document, "Guidelines for Community Noise", which states:
	"Night time aircraft movements should be discouraged where they impact residential communities".
	My constituents are not interested in the Department's latest highly technical wheeze to cram even more flights into Heathrow between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. We want the Department of Health to intervene to ensure that WHO guidelines and policies on night flights are implemented—not, as the Department for Transport indicates, some time over the next 30 years, but in the immediate medium term. A phased five-year withdrawal of night flights, starting with none between 11.30 pm and 6.30 am, would be a welcome move.
	British Airways is running advertisements extolling the virtues of its new beds, in which passengers can sleep soundly. My constituents simply demand the same level of cosseting and look forward to a time when they, too, can enjoy a calm and restorative good night's sleep, courtesy of the air transport industry.
	My second point is about Mr. Kassab Al-Rashid, who, with his wife, Amina Kadri—a British citizen—attended an advice surgery that I held in November 2000. They have four lovely children, with a fifth on the way. Mr. Al-Rashid is a Saudi Arabian, who first applied for asylum in 1994, so his approach to me was made on the sixth anniversary of his asylum application. The decision should, of course, have been made by a Conservative Home Secretary before I was elected in May 1997, although I regret to say that my own Government seem to have been as dilatory as the previous Conservative Administration. Incredibly, 10 years on, Mr. Al-Rashid, who campaigns for democratic, Islamic reform in Saudi Arabia, is still awaiting a decision on his asylum application.
	I hasten to add that earlier this year, 10 years after his initial application, he was granted indefinite leave to remain, outside the rules, but he is restricted and unable to travel throughout most of Europe, where most of the Saudi diaspora live, because the travel document for which he qualifies as a non-refugee, the Home Office certificate of identity, is not recognised by the majority of our European partners in the Schengen group.
	Successive immigration Ministers have assured me that a decision on my constituent's asylum application will be made "soon". In frustration, I endorsed a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman, who found the Home Office guilty of "serious maladministration". It became clear, too, as a result of the ombudsman's report, that there had been meetings and much correspondence between the Foreign and   Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, and that it was, in effect, the FCO that was vetoing Mr.   Al-Rashid's asylum. That is in itself a breach of the refugee conventions.
	In a blatant example of Executive non-accountability, the Home Office brushed aside the ombudsman's adjudication. As some kind of recompense to Mr. Al-Rashid, the ombudsman suggested that the Home Office give accelerated consideration to a naturalisation application from him, and, in June, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, to press that compromise on him. Incidentally, I was honoured to be one of the two referees for Mr. Al-Rashid's nationality application. Mr. Al-Rashid's Home Office file resembles in bulk the collected works of Shakespeare; he has been investigated to within an inch of his life, including by the security services post–11 September, and is as clean as a   whistle. The "good character" requirements for naturalisation are comprehensively met.
	As of now, my constituent has neither asylum, 10 years on, nor nationality, six months on, in the wake of one of the most damning ombudsman's reports I have read in my seven and half years as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister is unable to give me a timetable for the grant of nationality or asylum, and has only recently raised as a difficulty the supposed fact that Mr. Al-Rashid was illegally resident in the UK until the recent grant of leave outside the rules. I have taken legal advice on that point and I am told that it simply would not stand up in court, that Mr.   Al-Rashid should at some much earlier point have been given temporary leave to enter, since it was then impossible for any asylum seeker to enter the country legally, and that the Home Office in all other respects has consistently treated Mr. Al-Rashid as though he were legally resident. I am also advised that the Home Office is now clearly in breach of the undertaking given by the permanent secretary to the ombudsman with respect to the nationality application. Mr. Al-Rashid, with pro bono representation, may seek judicial review of the Home Office's conduct of his case.
	I would much rather have the matter settled out of court in a timely manner—albeit 10 years on—so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, even at this late stage, to move forward decisively. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on that message. We must ensure that all applications for asylum and naturalisation are dealt with fairly and speedily; 10 years is not acceptable, particularly as other more recent cases are being dealt with speedily and fairly.
	We are in Iraq, now at the invitation of the UN and the Iraqi Interim Government, to ensure free and fair elections for a new democratic Iraqi Government. I   hope that my constituent Mr. Al-Rashid is not suffering because of his same wish for free and fair elections in Saudi Arabia.

Adam Price: I   wish to focus on the state of the British constitution. It might seem curious for a Welsh nationalist to come to the defence of the British constitution, but desperate times need desperate measures, and this is a matter that goes beyond party politics and must surely concern us all. I refer to the ever-increasing concentration of power by the Executive in fewer and fewer persons' hands at the expense of the independence and authority of other institutions. It is what Lord Justice Woolf meant when he said earlier this year that some of the former Home Secretary's proposals were
	"inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect between the different arms of Government."
	As we have seen from the events of recent days, when the judiciary deliver the most damning indictment of this Government's erosion of the most basic liberties, they are told by the Foreign Secretary that they are simply wrong—which is as close as one can get to the abolition of judicial review by ministerial fiat. As we have also seen, our civil service has become progressively politicised, so that its impartiality and independence are in danger of being sacrificed to Ministers' agendas.
	With the erosion of those other institutions, the need for the House to act as a watchdog has never been greater, and neither has its inability to perform that role effectively, as we heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has joined our campaign. As Lord Butler said recently,
	"We suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive and that is a very grave flaw".
	The delicate system of checks and balances that was meant to prevent the abuse of power has been quietly eroded. It is ironic that that very principle—the separation of powers—is the cornerstone of the new constitution being suggested for Iraq. I quote Paul Bremer:
	"Since your Transitional . . . Law has deliberately placed those different . . . powers in multiple hands, the extensive rights guaranteed to each citizen are not dependent on the whims of one person or one small group."
	So the principle is being embedded in the new constitution in Iraq at the same time as it is being eroded here at home.
	The two conventions on which I particularly want to focus are the foundation of a parliamentary democracy: collective Cabinet responsibility and individual ministerial accountability. Let us, first, consider the former—Cabinet Government. We now know that the   Cabinet did not even see the Attorney-General's full advice. Notwithstanding that we still have not seen it, the Cabinet was not provided with it. On 17 March—[Interruption.] If the Minister would like to contradict me, I shall give him the opportunity to do so, because the fact of the matter is that on 17 March the Cabinet was given only the summary. It is in the Butler report, and it was contrary to the ministerial code, which states, in paragraph 23—[Interruption.] I will quote it to the Minister; perhaps he should read it more often:
	"When advice from the law officer is included in . . . papers for the cabinet . . . the conclusions may if necessary be summarised but, if this is done,"—
	this is the crucial thing—
	"the complete text of the advice should be attached."
	That did not happen in the Cabinet meeting, so the Cabinet was also misled about the content, inasmuch as the caveats in the Attorney-General's final view were not there for it to see. [Interruption.]
	The second principle, which is absolutely—

Adam Price: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who I am sure was trying to be helpful.
	According to the most important convention in the House, a Minister who is shown to have misled Parliament must resign, and the Prime Minister has responsibility for insisting on that resignation. However, a constitutional question clearly arises when the Prime Minister has misled Parliament. Who then should act to protect us? We have identified a curious gap in constitutional conventions because, as events have developed, a Prime Minister with a large enough majority can do pretty much what he or she likes. The Butler report highlighted substantial omissions of evidence on Iraq, but did not argue that the Prime Minister had given positively false information to the press or Parliament. On 18 September this year, however, The Daily Telegraph published extracts from a series of newly leaked documents from the Cabinet Office, which, with one exception, were not included in the Butler report. For example, two Downing street memos from mid-March 2002 describe meetings between David Manning, then foreign policy adviser to the Prime Minister, Christopher Meyer, then UK ambassador to Washington, and senior members of the US Administration. They show that the Prime Minister was committed to regime change as a policy objective a full 12 months before the war in Iraq and eight months before UN Security Council resolution 1441. In a letter to the Prime Minister, David Manning said that he told Condoleezza Rice that the Prime Minister
	"would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States."
	In his letter, Christopher Meyer said:
	"On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option."
	We were told by the Prime Minister all along that the Government's objective was disarmament, and explicitly not regime change by force. As late as February 2003, a decision had not been made to invade Iraq.
	The documents also show that UN Security Council resolution 1441 and the inspection regime were designed to provide a trigger for war as part of an explicitly set-out sequence of actions by the coalition, thus creating the political and legal basis for the invasion. In his memo on his lunch with Paul Wolfowitz, Christopher Meyer reported to Downing street:
	"I . . . went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN Security Council resolutions".
	Other material in the documents points to an intention to use and arguably abuse the UN route to provide a legal pretext for a predetermined policy of regime change, not peaceful disarmament. In an interview on 14 November 2002, however, the Prime Minister insisted:
	"The purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change."
	The documents provide further evidence about the advice on Iraq's weapons at the Prime Minister's disposal. For example, in a letter to the Prime Minister on 22 September 2002, the Foreign Secretary referred to a note by Peter Ricketts, the political director at the Foreign Office, which he attached to another letter to the Prime Minister. The note said of the threat:
	"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's . . . programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September . . . even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts"—
	That is a reference to chemical and biological weapons—
	"the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Adam Price: Indeed, and the Deputy Leader of the House could help all right hon. and hon. Members by putting copies of the documents in the Library, so that we can all read them in full.
	On 16 July 2002, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that
	"as more negotiations go on and he"—
	Saddam Hussein—
	"fails to comply, and you know that he is developing those weapons of mass destruction, then . . . you are entitled to draw the conclusion that this threat is growing not diminishing."
	On 24 September 2002, he told the House that Saddam Hussein's WMD programme was "active, detailed and growing". Yet the note from Peter Ricketts said that the programme was not growing. There has been no change in the pace of the programme; it has not been stepped up.
	The Cabinet Office documents were leaked for a reason: so that Members and the public know the truth about why and how we were taken to war. Members of the senior civil service know that the penalty for inconvenient truth telling can be very severe. There is   now a high-level investigation into the source of the   disclosure of those documents, and it has all the hallmarks of a Clive Ponting-like witch hunt. It is a tragic fact that the only people in public life who have lost their jobs as a result of the Iraq war are people such as Andrew Gilligan, who "got it mostly right", to quote the former chair of the D notice committee, whereas those such as the Prime Minister got it mostly wrong and are still in post. That brings me back to the constitutional question.
	If the collective Cabinet system is no longer functioning and if Parliament is impotent, we are nearer to the elective dictatorship that Lord Hailsham referred to more than a quarter of a century ago. We are trampling on the constitutional conventions. Parliament is being increasingly sidelined, ignored and treated with contempt. We believe that it is time that Parliament restored public confidence in our ability and responsibility to hold the Prime Minister to account. As "Erskine May" said, impeachment
	"is a safeguard of public liberty well worthy of a free country".
	In the new year, it is time to revive the tradition of upholding the most basic principle that Ministers must tell the truth to MPs, elected by the people.

Ian Cawsey: I wish that that there were the case in some respects. When tests were run, it was found that the area was rather low on wind. Hon. Members may call me a simple chap, but people might think that that would be key to building wind farms in an area. Apparently, the answer is to build higher turbines, with bigger blades, and the problem is overcome. Of course, that just increases local people's concerns. A so-called gold-digger syndrome might be more important. A company comes into an areas, does all the research and tests, and the plan becomes a viable option, so other companies start to think that the work has been done. More and more hon. Members may see similar trends in their own constituencies.
	In the relatively short time that we have, I do not want to debate the principles of and reasons for promoting renewable energy—those are not in doubt—but I want to talk about the process involved in locating wind farms. There seems to be general agreement across all the main parties that wind has a role to play, and I want to consider some of the comments that have been made in that respect.
	The Government's view is straightforward. There is a 10 per cent. target for renewable energies to be in place by 2010, and that is a move from 0.7 per cent. in renewable energy output when they came to power in   1997. Of course, renewable energy is not just wind. In the debate in the House on 25 October, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment pointed out that the Government have invested £500 million in non-wind renewable energies, £117 million in offshore wind farm technology, £60 million for energy crops and biomass energy, £31 million for photovoltaic energy cells, £12.5 million for micro-power schemes and £50 million for marine renewables. All of that is welcome, but many of the technologies are relatively new and are still developing. In the same debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce pointed out that, with the progress that is being made in renewable energy sources that are not related to wind, the best that we can hope for by 2010 is a third of our target being met by those technologies and another third being provided by onshore or offshore wind.
	I thought of those points at the weekend following the climate change conference in Argentina at which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who leads for the Conservatives on these matters, said that he thought the Government had to do more on renewable targets. Given the limitations of non-wind development that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce had already referred to, that has clear implications for the number of wind farms that will be required to meet the target.
	In my area, North Lincolnshire council has the job of dealing with many of these applications or certainly has a say in them. On its website, the Conservative deputy leader of the council, Councillor Liz Redfern, whom I   seem to have known for more years than either of us would care to remember, says:
	"North Lincolnshire Council is supportive of the need to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels to reduce the impacts of climate change and global warming."
	She adds that the council is committed to wind developments that
	"are well planned and take account of their impact on communities and the environment."
	That led to something happening in December last year that is a bit like Christmas in that it happens only once a year. The council had a unanimous resolution in which all the political groups accepted the need for renewable energy, and the fact that wind farms should be part of it but should not dominate too much in one particular area.
	In the debate in the House on 25 October, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who was leading for the Liberal Democrats, was taunted by Conservative Members who said that the Liberal Democrats' policy on wind farms was to support them except when they were in their areas, when they always opposed them. That led to the hon. Gentleman saying that he understood that that was the Conservative party's policy. In this pantomime season, perhaps it is a bit of "Oh yes, you are; oh no, you aren't." However, he said that the Liberal Democrats regularly support wind farm applications all over the country and went further to say that the party's policy was that there should be a presumption in favour of wind farms when applications are made. In support of that view, he said that public opinion was 80 per cent. in favour of wind farms.
	I have just finished consultation of my own and my annual report in which I wrote to 30,000 households to ask my constituents what they thought should happen with wind farm technologies. In some respect, the 80:20 split came out about right, but it is interesting that the 80 per cent. who supported wind farms were split almost equally between those who wholeheartedly supported them and did not mind how many there were or where they were, and those who believed that the principle of wind farms was a good one but that there should be a limit on their number in any one area. That is the point that I want to develop today.
	We seem to have got ourselves into the position in which the decisions as to where larger farms will go will be made by the Department of Trade and Industry while smaller ones will be the subject of planning applications to the local authority. The Government have, of course, come up with PPS22, which is an attempt to try to ensure that the process is clear and understood and that people have the right to have their say in it, but the issue becomes difficult when several local authorities cover a geographic area and the size of wind farms is different.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and I share a part of the country in which there are a number of applications on the go. When we visited the then Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and   Postal Services, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), we said that the position was such that his Department would determine some applications, and North Lincolnshire council, Doncaster metropolitan borough council, East Riding of Yorkshire council, West Lindsey district council and North Yorkshire county council would determine the others. However, that would often happen with no regard to what other councils or the Department were saying. There was a salami, or a slice-by-slice, process, so we said that the area would be overridden with wind farm applications because no one was trying to find out what would happen if they were all accepted. I fear that the system that has been put in place does nothing to address that problem.
	Following our meeting, the Minister helpfully sent an official from his Department to meet local constituents, the campaign groups that had been formed and other people with a great interest in the proposals for the area. The official asked whether they would think that it would be a good idea if the Government were to approve what he called a cumulative environment impact assessment, whereby the applications could be considered together so that sensible decisions could be   based on all proposals. Everyone thought that that would be a good idea, and he returned to Whitehall. It was a shock when he wrote a few weeks later to say that unfortunately that could not be done. That was greatly frustrating, because although I accept that he did not definitely say that such an assessment would happen, people thought that they had been offered something but it was taken away at the last minute.
	We have had a change of Minister since then—the post of Minister for Energy and E-Commerce is now held by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—and I have met him and his officials to discuss the matter again. It is clear that it is relevant to not only the Department of Trade and Industry but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because it involves planning applications and planning law. I understand that officials in those Departments are working together to determine whether a cumulative system could be put together for future applications. I   hope that they can do that because I am sure that the situation in North Lincolnshire will develop in other constituencies, so we need a transparent and up-front system for the fair consideration of all such applications.
	During Trade and Industry questions last week, the Minister for Energy and E-Commerce helpfully said that the Department was considering the matter and that he hoped that something would come forward soon. I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later, because local authorities are under pressure to determine applications that are under their control. They have targets and deadlines to meet and developers can take action against local authorities that do not reach decisions in a specific period. They want guidance so that they can do the right thing for their communities. We need the guidance now, and I hope that my plea will be taken up by the Department so that a system can be developed to assess the overall impact on an area, thus protecting towns and villages throughout our country from inappropriate and over-the-top wind farm development.

David Amess: I wish to make several points about justice before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess. Justice is a concept with which I find it increasingly difficult to grapple. The Prime Minister must have found it difficult to choose whether to be in Iraq or this country on the day when a report was issued on the conduct of his colleague, the former Home Secretary. Much of today's speak of justice has much to do with the former Home Secretary. I am sure that hon. Members will note that there have been several ministerial resignations since 1997. When Ministers resign, they usually say that they have done nothing wrong, so Ministers who resign obviously experience a great sense of injustice—I feel for them.
	When the war in Iraq was first mooted, the then leader of my party held meetings with the Prime Minister at which he was given access to intelligence. I have never pretended to be a defence expert, so when the then leader told us that we should vote for the war, I accepted completely what he said. Some of my colleagues might say that I was naive, but I accepted that the weapons of mass destruction were directed towards us and other countries, and the point about the 45 minutes in the dossier. What has happened since fills me with horror. We now know that what the Prime Minister told us simply was not the case. In the 20-odd years that I have been an MP, when a Minister—not least, the Prime Minister—gives information to the House that is not accurate or as it should be, he or she resigns. That just has not happened, and the House and the country accept it. Absolutely extraordinary!
	So I joined others on Tuesday 23 November in tabling a motion of impeachment against the Prime Minister—the first impeachment since the battle of Trafalgar. The following day, we were joined by the novelist Frederick Forsyth, author Iain Banks and representatives from Military Families Against the War to promote the need for impeachment. I still firmly believe that there is no alternative. The Prime Minister has destroyed the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy by not resigning. I and many other colleagues are determined to preserve constitutional government in the United Kingdom. We intend to stand firm, because the rules of constitutional conduct have been brushed aside. The Cabinet table has been replaced with the sofa, Cabinet minutes with e-mail, and the facts with belief. I   will not be a party to what is happening now, whereby the general public feel, time after time, that Members of Parliament are letting them down.
	I also seek justice for my constituent Maajid Nawaz. This time last year I visited Maajid in prison in Cairo. He has been sentenced to five years, accused of belonging to the Islamic Liberation movement, which is not a proscribed organisation. I recently spoke with his mother, Abi Nawaz, who is desperate to have Maajid, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst transferred from prison in Egypt to prison in the UK. I recently wrote to Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, requesting her to raise the matter with the Egyptian authorities. I am delighted that she is doing so. I very much want the families of the three men to meet her. It would be an excellent opportunity for the Government to keep them up to date on what the authorities are doing on their behalf. I ask the Minister to thank the noble Baroness for what she is doing.
	I ask for justice for the family of Jo Martinson, a 19-year-old woman killed in a car crash on 14 November 2001. The gentleman driving the car responsible for the accident had one eye, no licence, no MOT certificate, no insurance and defective brakes. After three years of campaigning, I still have not received justice for her family.
	The Solicitor-General has been sympathetic. Indeed, we have debated the matter. In a letter to me, she said:
	"There is no indication of a continued investigation into the status of the seized excise licence or any request for advice by the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of a charge of fraudulent use of an excise or indeed any associated offence. I understand that no specific advice was sought from the Crown Prosecution Service by Essex Police regarding this allegation. As you are aware, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate allegations of criminal offences. In the normal course of events, the police investigate such offences without reference to the Crown Prosecution Service."
	The sad fact is that, understandably, as the Solicitor-General said,
	"the police in this case were concerned about whether there was any evidence to implicate"—
	we shall call him Mr. X—
	"in the fatal road incident. The senior crown prosecutor who advised the police concentrated on those aspects of the case, but did indicate in his advice that other Road Traffic Act offences were made out."
	The family are devastated by that. The Solicitor-General continued:
	"Unfortunately, I am not able to say why the police did not commence proceedings in respect of a possible fraudulent use of a vehicle excise licence. I can only speculate that it may have been overlooked as investigators and prosecutors concentrated on the more serious allegations."
	She went on to make personal remarks. A mistake was made, and there was a week's delay in dealing with the matter. That is very difficult for the family to cope with.
	I seek justice for pedestrians and people who ride on buses. Many of us have observed bendy buses in London. I tried to table a question about them, and I   was told that the matter is the responsibility not of a Minister but of the Greater London Authority. I have witnessed two bad accidents involving bendy buses. They are 18 m long, and I cannot believe that anyone in their senses could authorise their use. Invariably there are very few people on them, and they will have disastrous effects for pedestrians. Our roads simply are not made for these 18 m buses.
	I seek justice for those people seeking money from the national lottery. Southend, West is in the bottom three of the 659 constituencies in benefiting from funding, but we are not the third wealthiest constituency in the country.
	I seek justice, finally, for the unborn child. I feel increasingly that life is very cheap these days. I am pleased that the Government intend to make allowances for new clause 1, which has all-party support, to the Mental Capacity Bill. However, I could hardly believe Baroness Warnock's statements. She thinks that assisted suicide should be legal; that the very frail should, like elephants, slink away to die quietly; that doctors, when asked to assist in such cases, should refer to their conscience; and that parents who want to keep premature babies with unviable lives on life support machines should pay for that.
	My wife and I thank constituents, friends and colleagues for their support at a difficult time for our family. I wish everyone a very happy Christmas, and good health, peace and prosperity in the new year.

Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to an issue that I raised in last year's Christmas Adjournment debate—the scandalous way in which certain solicitors and claims farmers are raiding miners' compensation in my constituency and other mining constituencies throughout the country.
	In last year's debate I raised the case of Mark Gilbert Morse, a Newcastle-based law firm that was not only charging costs to clients but reclaiming the cost of cases from the Department of Trade and Industry. I am pleased to report that since the intervention of the Law Society that company has paid back to my constituents the money that it owes them. The Law Society continues to investigate the way in which the firm is operating. Since that debate, the issue has been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members who have coalfield or former coalfield constituencies and pressure is being brought to bear on lawyers to pay back the money that should not have been deducted.
	Another element that has emerged is the activities of claim farmers—middlemen who are not legally qualified and who have plundered huge amounts of compensation for, in many cases, doing nothing but registering a claim and passing it on to a firm of solicitors. In a Westminster Hall debate on 26 October this year, I raised the case of my constituent, Mr. Jobes, who signed an agreement with a company called Industrial Disease Compensation Ltd. of Ashington, which, following a successful claim, deducted almost £3,000 from Mr. Jobes' compensation in return for simply passing the claim on to a Liverpool-based law   firm, Silverbeck Rymer. During that debate, I   challenged IDC to pay back the money, but to date the company has been silent. IDC cannot justify deducting the money—there was no risk to the claims farmer or any reason to deduct £3,000 from Mr. Jobes' compensation. The Law Society is still investigating the   case—it was the solicitors who actually deducted the money—but, alas, IDC continues.
	The company has moved on from the coalfields to other areas of industrial compensation in the north-east and elsewhere. It is now involved in pursuing asbestos compensation claims. It is difficult to find out what IDC does for the money apart from register people's claims, then pass them on to solicitors, but, with the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), who knows of my interest, I shall highlight the case of Mr. Vincent Mullen of Jarrow. He responded to an advertisement placed in a local newspaper by the company—now called FreeClaim IDC—inviting people to attend a free screening session to see whether they were suffering from asbestos-related disease. On attending the session at the Quality hotel in Boldon in August, Mr. Mullen was asked to sign a document to progress the claim. No alternatives were put to him—for example, that he could approach his trade union, which would do it for nothing—nor was it made clear to him what he would get in return for signing the agreement. On reading it more closely, Mr.   Mullen discovered that if his case was successful, he would have to pay £399 to IDC—again, it was not clear for what the payment would be made—so he withdrew from the agreement and pursued his case through his union, Amicus, which dealt with the claim for nothing. Subsequently, however, Mr. Mullen was landed with a bill for £587.50 with a threat of court action by IDC to cover its costs.
	Such cases are a scandal. It is about time that the Government legislated against or regulated claims handlers. Such companies are not covered by any legislation and they fall outside the Law Society's remit, although I accept that the Law Society has a role to play—as the cases that I have detailed show, IDC is passing on cases to firms of solicitors, although whether IDC is charging or receiving a fee for doing so is unclear. At least one well known Newcastle law firm, which I   believe does work for the Transport and General Workers Union, is also doing work for IDC.
	Many people—I know this from experience of the cases that I have dealt with in my constituency—go along to such screening sessions. They think that the people offering advice are legally qualified or have some legal background. In fact, they have none. They are acting as middlemen to pass on claims.
	The Law Society is calling for regulation. I agree with its chief executive, Janet Paraskeva, who said in a recent article that the Law Society
	"always advises anyone who believes they have a genuine claim to contact a solicitor. If solicitors step out of line they are answerable to the Law Society. Claims farmers are answerable to no one, and the public has no comeback against shoddy performance."
	As I have said, I concur with that view. I would strongly suggest to anyone in the north-east who thinks that they have an industrial injury or an industrial disease that they should first go through their trade union, if they are a member of a trade union, or go to a reputable firm of solicitors, of which there are many in the north-east, and cut out the middlemen.
	The Government need to legislate. I understand that they have given the "industry" a year to tidy up its act, but that is not good enough. People are being misled. They are being ripped off by characters who are doing nothing apart from registering a claim and passing it on to a firm of solicitors. I agree that there is an onus on the Law Society to start regulating its members. It needs to examine the relationship between its members and claims farmers.
	Urgent action is needed if we are not to see more people being misled, certainly in former industrial areas such as the north-east and in former coalfields. Unless that action is taken, we shall see more and more people being ripped off and losing the compensation that they deserve because of the industrial injuries that they suffered through no fault of their own in their working life.
	I wish all Members a happy Christmas. That includes your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Edward Garnier: I will not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Instead, I will revert to an issue that has been touched upon this afternoon by the hon.   Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
	On 23 November, the first day of the Session, I and a number of other right hon. and hon. Members tabled a   motion calling for a Select Committee to examine the work and conduct of the Prime Minister that led to the   decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, with a view to considering his impeachment. We intend to keep the motion on the Order Paper—motion No. 37 on today's Order Paper—until the matter is resolved by debate on the Floor of the House. It is a process that survives the general election and one that focuses more accurately on particular conduct of the Prime Minister for which he personally must answer.
	For a cross-party group of Members to contemplate the impeachment of the Prime Minister is to invite derision from Government loyalists, pitying but concerned smiles from self-proclaimed political realists and yawns from those who believe that there are many more interesting things for grown-up Members to be getting on with.
	The first reaction is understandable. The paramount rule in the political jungle is survival, and any available weapon is a good one. Ridicule is the most effective tool, even when borrowed by those way down the political feeding chain. It brings with it a sense of moral and intellectual superiority. In 21st century Britain the very word "impeachment" suggests the troubles of the favourite of Charles I, the Duke of Buckingham, or men in 18th century wigs spending almost a decade arguing over Warren Hastings's life of luxury in far-off India. It is a process lost in the mists of history with no purpose in our advanced parliamentary democracy, which is sustained by universal suffrage and the discipline of general elections.
	The Prime Minister's sexual morality is unimpeachable, so the Clinton example has no relevance to us. "Go ahead, make my day," says the Blairite, with the confidence that comes through sticking his thumbs into his belt loops. For the realist, one has only to ask, "Can we impeach the Prime Minister?, to know the answer. Of course not. Labour has a vast majority, this is a political question and the tribal loyalty of party in the Commons will outweigh the merits of the case, whatever its qualities. It simply will not work. We will sort out the Prime Minister at the general election. That is when he will be held to account.
	As for the yawners, the third category, they have never applied their minds to much and they are not going to start now. One cannot argue with them, so they are best ignored. The survival of the praetorian guard depends upon the survival of the emperor and they will die in the ditch. It is the realists whom we must persuade to see where reality and our constitutional duty lie.
	In doing so, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap set by No. 10, which wants us to forget the reasons for invading Iraq used by the Prime Minister in his Commons speech in March 2003, to forget what we now know he knew or ought to have known then, and to concentrate only on the benefits for Iraq that have flowed from the war. It wants us lazily to accept that any criticism of the Prime Minister for his conduct in taking us into the war is to tolerate, if not positively to support, the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, and to be an opponent of the war and a disloyal critic of our brave troops. It wants us to believe that because the Prime Minister has been exonerated of bad faith or dishonesty by the narrowly focused Hutton and Butler inquiries, his integrity in all thing and at all times is not open to doubt.
	For me, the argument in support of our motion to inquire into the grounds for impeachment is not based on the wrongness of going to war. If it were, I would not support it. It is based upon the need for Parliament to check the Executive, and to remind even the most powerful in our country that they are not supreme and ourselves that a functioning parliamentary democracy depends on trust and truth.
	President Bush told the American people why he was leading his country to war. Whether one agrees with him or not, no one can accuse him of saying one thing in 2002, something different in early 2003 and yet something else in 2004. Examine our Prime Minister's record over the same period and ask yourself, Mr.   Deputy Speaker, whether he can claim to have been as consistent or as candid with Parliament, the parliamentary Labour party and the public as the   President was in the United States of America. Did the Prime Minister know, do and say things in the lead-up to the war that were inconsistent with what he told us?
	There are, of course, good and obvious reasons for any British Prime Minister to want to remain on good terms with the United States. It is in our national interest to protect our shared values and achieve our joint goals. Our longstanding alliance with America is neither a mistake nor a serendipitous chance of geography or history. It is based on a cool assessment of how our country's present and future can best be secured. But what the Prime Minister did was to say one thing here and another to the Americans. While not insulting Mr.   Bush like the French, we have a right to expect that the Prime Minister's first loyalty should have been to the truth and the British public through the House of Commons.
	The Prime Minister made a number of claims about Iraq from early 2002 onwards that drew upon the authority of the intelligence services for their validation. He told us he had knowledge of the facts that he could not, for understandable reasons of national security, share with us. He stated:
	"I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c.3]
	The Prime Minister led us to believe that Saddam possessed strategic weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to the region, the wider world and our own national interests, and that he would use them unless we defeated him. The secret intelligence proved as much, said the Prime Minister. He asserted in early 2002 that Iraq had
	"stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons".
	The assessment of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time was that Iraq
	"may have small quantities of agents and weapons."
	The Prime Minister stated that the United Nations inspectorate was reporting that WMD did exist, whereas in fact it was saying no such thing.
	The Prime Minister stated that Iraq's illicit weapons programme was on the increase, when the intelligence suggested it was not. The Prime Minister misreported the United Nations inspectors' findings so as to portray further inspections as futile. The invasion, he said, was sanctioned by international law because Saddam Hussein was in breach of numerous Security Council resolutions, and in particular 1441. He claimed that material found after April 2003 was part of a secret Iraqi weapons programme, although there was a lack of intelligence to support this assertion.
	Today we are told that the reason for the war was to get rid of Saddam's regime. We are reminded how much better things are for the previously downtrodden people of Iraq, and anyway, everything the Prime Minister did and said was based on good faith. As for the first reason, barely a month before the invasion the Prime Minister said in the House that Saddam could stay in power if only he complied with United Nations Security Council resolutions, so presumably regime change was not a decisive factor behind the invasion. We now know, of course, that that was very much in the Prime Minister's mind in 2002. The second point may well be true, but   rather depends on whether one lives in Kurdish Iraq or Basra, or Falluja or Mosul. As to the third, present retrospection is less persuasive than earlier introspection.
	I voted with the Government in March 2003 because I believed that the Prime Minister was advancing a case for war based on the unvarnished truth and because I   could not believe that any Prime Minister, particularly one who had put so much store on his personal trustworthiness, could do otherwise. If the Prime Minister had already committed our country to war in a private deal with the President of the United States in 2002, he should have told at least his Cabinet at the time, and Parliament when he made the case for war in March 2003.
	It is the constitutional duty of all Members of Parliament—Government and Opposition Members—to hold the Government to account. I accept that that task is made difficult in Westminster, where the   Executive largely sit in and on the Commons. The Government have an enormous majority over all other parties and, save for a few notable exceptions, it has been a supine majority that has forgotten, if it ever knew, that it should do more than lamely follow its leader. I believe, and I sincerely hope, that the realists are beginning to get real.
	We lack accountability in the House not only in respect of the Executive but, briefly to refer to another matter, in respect of other bodies that should be accountable to us. I am thinking, in particular, of the Civil Aviation Authority and I refer to the speech of the   hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), whose constituents complain about night flights coming in and out of Heathrow. What he may not know, but I and my constituents do know, is that the East Midlands airport—laughingly called the Nottingham East Midlands airport, despite the fact that it is situated wholly within the county of Leicestershire—now has more night flights going in and out of it than Stansted, Gatwick or Heathrow. Yet only those three airports are designated under the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
	I cannot persuade the Government—either because they will not listen, do not want to listen or do not care about the people of Leicestershire—to designate the Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it cares to call itself. Only if the Secretary of State for Transport takes control over matters concerning the ingress and egress of flights into and out of NEMA will my constituents gain any degree of comfort. The voluntary agreements between NEMA and the North-West Leicestershire district council—a worthy but powerless body in the face of the commercial might of this vast airport company owned by 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester—are inadequate. The company has no interest whatever in Leicestershire other than the fact that it owns a piece of real estate there, in and out of which it can fly aeroplanes in order to increase its profits and, no doubt, mitigate the council tax bills of the people of Manchester. That might be of interest to the Minister, who I see in his place on the Front Bench.
	It is essential that the Civil Aviation Authority does its duty to the people of Leicestershire by making itself accountable through the Secretary of State and by making the organisation behind NEMA accountable to the people of Leicestershire. That can happen only if the Government adopt a vigorous approach. Until they realise how serious an issue it is for my constituents, whose quiet enjoyment of their lives is being destroyed, I will continue to press the key issue—the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr and many other hon. Members have also stressed it—of holding the Government and the Executive to account in this Chamber day in and day out.

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House all the best for Christmas and an exceptional new year as well. That applies to the Doorkeepers, the police, security officers and all the other staff who are greatly needed in the House. We should express our thanks to them and wish them all the best.
	I would like to send my best wishes to the Fifth Medical Unit, which is based in Preston and has been sent to Iraq, and to the Territorial Army unit from Chorley, which is backing it up. I wish them all the best during these troubled times. As a medical unit in a very difficult situation, it will have to put up with a lot. The staff will want to ensure that they deliver the best medical treatment not just for our own forces, but for the Iraqi people.
	It is important that hon. Members are allowed to raise all sorts of matters in this House, and I can think of nothing more important than the naming and amalgamation of regiments. A consensus about a new name used to exist between the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool) and, most famous of them all, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Three colonels, backed by MPs from Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire, signed a letter in support of adopting the name the Royal Lancashire Regiment. That would have been a great name to go forward with. It is a disgrace that that consensus was somehow destroyed when it arrived on the Army Board's desk.
	The board ignored the wishes expressed by Members of Parliament and the regiments, and the result was the convoluted name the King's Lancashire Border Regiment. A proud county like Lancashire should have its own regiment, and not have to bend the knee to Cumbria. After amalgamation, 90 per cent. of the new regiment's members will come from the county palatine of Lancashire but, somehow, the tail represented by the remaining 10 per cent. has managed to wag the dog. That is unacceptable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Front Bench, will make the Secretary of State for Defence aware of the disgraceful new name and ensure that there is a chance to debate it. I hope that we can change the name to reflect the consensus that had been reached, and that we can do so quite quickly.
	Another matter very important to the good people of Lancashire is textiles. The procurement of Army uniforms is very important for the textile industry. In time of need, our armed forces were well served by the textiles produced in Lancashire's factories, but we now discover that a bridal wear company in China has tendered to provide battledress. That is unacceptable. How can a company specialising in wedding dresses produce battledress? The sample produced for tender purposes did not come from the factory in China, but from somewhere else. The battledress order has been given to a state-owned factory in China, which will produce specialist camouflage for our armed forces, and that is unacceptable.
	People may say that anybody can make camouflage clothing, but that is not true. The print involved is very specialised, as is the chemical treatment given to the material to ensure that personnel are better protected at night. They cannot be seen through night-vision goggles, as the chemical treatment prevents heat being released, and good camouflage helps soldiers to blend in with their surroundings. We are putting all that at risk by giving the battledress order to a state-owned factory in China. That is not on. Why should a subsidised factory in China be given such a contract? We would not supply China's army, because of that country's human rights record, but somehow we find it acceptable for China to supply uniforms for our armed forces. That is not good. The matter needs to be examined immediately and the contract brought back to the UK. Every other European country ensures that uniforms for their armed forces are provided by domestic manufacturers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will take that on board, as I know that he also has a constituency interest in this matter.
	While on the subject of procurement, I must say that I am delighted by the tranche 2 Typhoon contract, which could not have come at a better time for the north-west. Many companies, from Scotland to Cornwall, will benefit, and it is very important that the contract should go ahead. As well as securing jobs in the north-west, it will also ensure that specialist skills will be retained. It   will show that Britain remains at the cutting edge of aerospace technology.
	The aerospace industry is especially important, and the time has come for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make sure that it is a strategic investment for the future. We must not let it disappear as we let the textile industry disappear. I hope that the jobs that we have secured will in turn attract the future investment needed to ensure that we do not fall behind in the aerospace technology race. Of course, there is technology transfer from military to civil producers and we must keep that. We must not lose jobs   throughout the country, whether it be from BAE   Systems, Bombardier in Northern Ireland or Rolls-Royce in Derby. We have to protect jobs because they mean so much to this country.
	Ministers must be accountable to the House. It is only right that Members should expect them to come to the House to address the issues of the north-west. People rightly ask why we still have Grand Committees for Wales and for Scotland. We have them because they allow MPs to bring Ministers before them to address them on matters of importance to Scotland and Wales. Surely, what is good for Scotland and Wales should be good for the north-west and other regions. We ought to extend Grand Committees to all the regions, allowing us to ask Ministers to explain why they are or are not investing in our regions. The time has come to give more power to Back Benchers to scrutinise Ministers on behalf of their regions and to find out why investment has gone where it has.
	The M6 is of obvious importance to me. It is the major link from Scotland to the south. At Lancashire, though, there are new plans to create four lanes from Birmingham to Warrington. From Warrington, going north to south Preston, however, there will be three lanes. We will end up with a bottleneck second to none. It will remind us of the bad old days in Birmingham. If we are making the motorway four lanes, why on earth not do that from Preston, where several motorways join, right down to Birmingham? That would ensure that we do not have a bottleneck.
	Railways are also important. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will recognise that Euxton station will be funded by the developer. It is a former royal ordnance site of 900 acres. Some 2,500 new houses will go on to the site and there will be new businesses and 10,000 jobs. One would have thought that to make all that sustainable, which it is meant to be, a new railway station would have been built. The money is there, but the SRA has said that it might put 35 minutes on a train journey to Buxton. The authority has come up with every reason why the station cannot go ahead. The time has come to stop messing about. Let us get on with the job. Let us spend the money the developer has put in. Let us ensure that the people who will use Euxton—where there is plenty of park and ride, whether they are going into Manchester or Preston—will benefit from the station. In addition, the station at Coppull was closed under Beeching, but there is huge demand for it to reopen to give the west coast main line another station, thereby increasing accessibility.
	I am trying—we all are—to fit in everything today. Farmers are important, but dairy farmers in Lancashire have suffered badly because of supermarkets. For beef cattle, poultry, pigs or whatever, supermarkets are screwing down the price all the time. That is not sustainable for farming in the United Kingdom, and it certainly is not sustainable for farmers in Lancashire. I   feel sorry for the dairy and poultry industries, which are having the screws put on them by supermarkets. The time has come for supermarkets to recognise that farming has to make a profit and has to be sustainable. Otherwise, we cannot expect the quality that we put into farming, which ensures welfare rights for animals that other countries do not provide. If we are not careful, farming will become another forgotten industry. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meets with the supermarkets to ensure fair farmgate prices for the benefit of all and for the future.

Paul Burstow: I wish to raise three issues that are currently causing a good deal of concern among many of my constituents.
	The first issue dates back to 14 November, although the history goes back somewhat further. It arises from the Lyons review that considered where Government offices should be located. Its direct impact on my constituency began on 14 November with a visit from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to the disability benefits centre there. He notified the staff of the intention to close the centre in Sutton during 2005 and to relocate its work and, if they so wished, its staff to Blackpool. In all, the decision will affect approximately 350 staff, many of whom are my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
	The disability benefits centre covers most of the south-east of England—most of south London, and counties such Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and also the Isle of Wight. The services for which it is responsible are not   only the processing of benefit applications and the bureaucratic processes involved in administering payments—it also provides outreach and home visiting services. How on earth will those services be provided from Blackpool? One of the concerns of many of my constituents who work in the centre is that the change in service delivery will result in a reduction in the quality of service that many disabled people receive. That message was put to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington when we met about 70 staff at a meeting in their canteen last Friday. They put forcefully their concerns about the reduction in service and their understandable anxieties about their own futures.
	The meeting led me and my hon. Friend to table early-day motion 438, which is on the Order Paper today. The staff feel that the selection of the Sutton disability benefits centre has been arbitrary. Where is the business case that justifies the closure? Where is the   rationale behind the decision? I am led to believe that the centre is among the best performers on the performance measurements that the Department uses. So how will delivery of the service be maintained or, indeed, improved?
	For the 350 staff affected by the decision, especially part-time and low-grade staff, there is the added uncertainty about finding another job in the civil service in the Greater London area when the Government are looking to export more jobs out of the area. There appears to be a lack of co-ordination between Departments about how the downsizing in London is to be worked through.
	I was told that there was a possibility of finding jobs in Croydon, which is very near to my constituency—for example, at the Home Office. On further inquiry, it turns out that the Home Office is also shedding jobs, and doing so in Croydon. So people are competing for the finite number of jobs that are opening up in London. In my part of London about 830 people from Jobcentre Plus schemes, the disability benefits centre and so on are looking for redeployment opportunities.
	The Lyons report is the driver behind all this, but no evidence has been presented to staff or Members of Parliament to justify the proposal to close the centre. I   hope that before the 90-day consultation is concluded, the Department for Work and Pensions will publish the business case so that we can see whether what is proposed stacks up. We can then discharge our responsibility as Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Government, hold them to account and ensure that they deliver value to the taxpayer and a better service for disabled people.
	I also have concerns about the continuing programme of post office closures affecting not only my constituency but those of many hon. Members. Just yesterday, I   received a letter from the Post Office Ltd. confirming the intention that it had announced earlier this year to close post offices in Cheam and Belmont in my constituency. That is bad news for my constituency and for the villages of Cheam and Belmont. It is bad news that results from a bad decision-making process. The process is fundamentally flawed.
	The Post Office's so-called network reinvention programme is a euphemism for closures. It poses as a strategic assessment of the need for comprehensive postal services in a particular community. However, when we look more closely at what the Government and the Post Office are doing, it is clear that they are taking the path of least resistance. They call for volunteers at the beginning of the process and they dangle a juicy carrot to encourage those volunteers to come forward. As much as £60,000 is on offer to postmasters to give up their licences or franchises and go out of business. The process is driven by postmaster preference and, of course, once postmasters have volunteered to be part of   the consultation exercise they have to sign a contract to say that if Post Office Ltd. decides to proceed with closure—despite what might be overwhelming evidence against closure—they will close. Postmasters have no choice at that stage in the process.
	In September, when the Post Office began the consultation in my constituency on its area plan, we had 13 sub-post offices. The Post Office proposed to close six of them. The consultation closed on 20 October and it took the Post Office just two weeks to come to the view that it would be okay to go ahead with the closure of three of those post offices—Angel Hill, Church Hill road and Oldfields road—thus punching a hole in the local suburban network in my constituency. Those closures will make it more difficult for the elderly, the disabled and many local businesses to gain access to postal services. The consideration of the representations—submitted by Postwatch, the council and many others—was clearly limited and it fuels the impression among my constituents that the whole process was a sham. It is not genuine consultation and will not result in the overturning of any decisions. They have already been made.
	Why should my constituents bother getting involved in campaigns to try to persuade the Post Office? Thousands signed petitions and hundreds wrote letters, but the news this week has come as a further blow to the traders and residents in Belmont and Cheam villages. Services will be withdrawn and it will be more difficult to gain access to pensions, benefits and all the other services post offices provide. I raise the issue because of my constituents' frustration. They thought that they had embarked on a genuine process of dialogue and consultation with the Post Office, but the reality has become clear as they learn, days before Christmas, that by the end of January most of their postal services will be gone.
	My final point is also about consultation, and again I   fear that it is a sham. It concerns the provision of sheltered housing in my constituency, especially that provided by Croydon Churches housing association through the schemes Distin court, Grace court, Hepworth court and Knight house. Last year, the housing association embarked on a best value review of its sheltered housing schemes. It found, not surprisingly, an overwhelming desire among tenants to retain resident wardens in their schemes. Tenants felt that resident wardens provided peace of mind, security and comfort. However, events have moved on and an employment tribunal in the London borough of Harrow concluded that, in a scheme provided by that local authority, the period of time during which a resident warden was required to remain on site on call was working time for the purposes of the working time regulations.
	The Harrow judgment has been used as a pretext for   withdrawing resident wardens and introducing non-resident wardens. The legal position is not clear and   the interpretation of the working time directive by other employment tribunals has led to completely different answers. However, Croydon Churches housing association has prayed in aid that particular, non–binding decision by an employment tribunal to railroad residents into believing that they should accept a lesser service, despite the fact that two or three years ago they were promised that the service would be maintained as it is today. I ask the Minister for his assistance in seeking support from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in finding ways to ensure that housing associations embark on a serious dialogue with their tenants. We must, of course, comply with the working time directive, but it should not be used as an excuse to reduce the quality of service and the peace of mind that a resident warden service provides.
	I end with this point. There is concern that the service to be introduced from April 2005 will result in people receiving a warden service for fewer than 15 hours a week. Under the concessionary television licence scheme, those people pay only £5 for a licence because they have resident wardens. As they will lose their resident warden, they may lose their TV licence concession, so not only will they lose the quality of life benefits and the peace of mind provided by the service, they will also end up paying more.
	I ask the Deputy Leader of the House for assistance in pursuing that matter with Croydon Churches housing association, to persuade it to reopen consultations and to have a serious dialogue with the tenants to find a way through that enables them to retain residential wardens for the quality of service that that gives them.

Rudi Vis: I   have spoken about Cyprus and Turkey in Adjournment debates on many occasions, so it should be no surprise that I come back to those matters today, so soon after the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 16 and 17 December and the Prime Minister's statement only yesterday. At the end of my remarks, I shall put one straightforward question, as I   did not receive an answer from my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to the question I put in a previous Adjournment debate.
	I have no objection whatever to Turkey eventually joining the European Union. I am not opposed to the majority faith in Turkey. On the contrary, currently the   only positive reason for the commencement of accession negotiations might be that Turkey is a Muslim country. In many other respects, Turkey still fails miserably and has a long way to go.
	Despite all that has been said recently, I shall quote from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. He said:
	"The European Council agreed that Turkey should begin negotiations on 3 October 2005, during the British presidency of Europe. Before this happens, however, Turkey will need to complete its latest reform package. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, confirmed during the European Council that he was ready to sign before 3 October the protocol to the Ankara agreement extending the European Union and Turkey customs union to the 10 new EU member states. That does not constitute formal legal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus."—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol.428, c. 1921.]
	The last line of that quotation is disturbing: there will be no formal legal recognition of a full member of the EU by an aspirant member when accession negotiations are supposed to start, on 3 October 2005.
	In reality, now that Cyprus is a full member of the EU, there is no longer a Cyprus problem; there is a Turkey problem about Cyprus. I shall now quote from the statement of the President of Cyprus, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, made two days ago on Sunday 19 December, on the outcome of the European Council. He said:
	"The decision of the European Council incorporates Turkey's commitment to sign the Protocol for the expansion of the Customs Union, so as to apply also in respect of the Republic of Cyprus before October 3, 2005.
	First, this commitment is included in the Conclusions and not in an accompanying text and has exactly the same weight and importance as the other provisions of the Conclusions. Second, and perhaps more important, is the fact that it is a necessary prerequisite that Turkey has to fulfil before the start of accession negotiations on October 3, 2005."
	President Papadopoulos continued:
	"The Protocol does not constitute a simple procedural multilateral agreement. It covers a wide range of issues, such as the movement of people and goods, agriculture, all kinds of transport and many other issues."
	I quite understand the specifics to which President Papadopoulos referred, and the protocol of course requires EU negotiations, but bilateral negotiations will also have to be held. President Papadopoulos clearly indicates that the bilateral negotiations require a formal, legal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House clarify this matter? Is there to be formal, legal recognition before 3 October 2005? If the answer is no, Cyprus might well veto the talks on 3 October 2005.
	I finish by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all hon. Members and all staff season's greetings and a prosperous new year.

Alex Salmond: May I   say how much I have enjoyed the past five hours or so, listening to the many and varied contributions, and how lucky the Deputy Leader of the House is to draw this duty? He even has the opportunity to reply to them, which is an added bonus. It has been a very enjoyable experience indeed.
	I should like to take up the strong thread of concern that has been one of the features of this Adjournment debate and follow the hon. Member for Southend, West   (Mr. Amess), the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the hon. Member for   Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) in reflecting the anxiety felt by many of us across the parties about the need to emphasise Executive accountability to Parliament by laying a case for impeachment against the Prime Minister, as reflected in motion 37 on today's Order Paper on the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the Iraq war.
	I also noted in Labour Members' contributions two informed speeches by the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that, although they were made from different perspectives, were both excellent.
	I, too, saw the Prime Minister's press conference this morning in Baghdad. I noted that after the last question the Prime Minister asked the interpreter to wait until the press conference had finished before delivering the   interpretation. The television commentator said that the security advice was that the live part of the press conference had gone on long enough. It struck me at that point, reflecting on what the hon. Member for Ilford, South said, that it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister could have believed that the consequence of launching a war in Iraq in the early part of last year could be a situation where tens of thousands of people are dead, where the country is in a state of carnage and chaos and where even within that bubble of security it is not possible to continue a press conference for any length of time because of security considerations.
	The other feature of that press conference that I noted was that the phrase, "weapons of mass destruction" was never mentioned. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, many people would like us to experience collective amnesia about the fact that last year the House and the public were told that WMD were the casus belli for the war.
	I want to base my remarks largely on the excellent pamphlet that I have in my hand, "A Case to Answer," which was commissioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr and written by two academics, Glen Rangwala and Dan Plesch. Hon. Members will remember that Glen Rangwala was the academic who discovered last spring that the dodgy dossier—the plagiarised PhD thesis—was dodgy. Dan Plesch is well known. He is an honorary fellow of Birkbeck college, university of London, and a visiting research fellow at the university of Keele. He is a widely read historian, author and commentator.
	The authors of the document present the substantive body of evidence that requires the House to take seriously the motion on the Order Paper and to call to account, in terms of our own self-respect and in terms of our own proceedings, the Executive and the Prime Minister in particular.
	The case is that the Prime Minister made 28 statements about Iraq's weapons that were not supported by the intelligence assessments available to him. To give but one example, on 17 September 2002, his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, wrote in an e-mail that when publishing the intelligence dossier the Government needed to make it clear that
	"we do not claim that we have evidence that he—Saddam Hussein—is an imminent threat".
	One week later, however, when the Prime Minister presented the dossier to the House of Commons, he said that the threat was "serious and current". It is impossible to reconcile the e-mail from the Prime Minister's chief of staff with the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House a week later.
	Twelve occasions documented in "A Case to Answer" show that the Prime Minister failed either to disclose available counter-evidence or to ensure that it came into the public domain. I was particularly struck by Saddam Hussein's ill-fated son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was often cited by the Prime Minister as providing evidence for the possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, we now know from the Butler inquiry that British intelligence had access to information that that   gentleman gave the UN weapons inspectors on 7 August 1995, when he said that he had personally ordered the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. That information proved to be correct, but the point is that, although available, it was not presented to the House or to the wider public.
	Butler expressed great surprise at the failure formally to withdraw material that was found to be false until much later in the process. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr pointed out, even now the Prime Minister is disinclined to tell us when that particular fact became available to him. Finally, on the question of whether the Prime Minister entered into an agreement with the United States without the consent of Cabinet, Parliament or the people, when my hon. Friend offered evidence that he had, the Deputy Leader of the House became particularly agitated and appeared to disagree with him, even though my hon. Friend quoted from a series of leaked e-mails and documents from reliable Executive sources.
	I was struck by "Plan of Attack" which was written by Bob Woodward—who was involved in a previous impeachment—with the compliance of the White House, and describes events in September 2002:
	"On the morning of Sept. 7, 2002 Blair left London on a transatlantic flight to see Bush at Camp David. In Blair's conversations with Bush, it was increasingly clear to the Prime Minister how committed Bush was to action . . . Bush looked Blair in the eye. 'Saddam Hussein is a threat. And we must work together to deal with this threat, and the world will be better off without him.' Bush recalled that he was 'probing' and 'pushing' the Prime Minister. He said it might require—would probably entail—war. Blair might have to send British troops. 'I'm with you,' the Prime Minister replied, looking Bush back in the eye, pledging flat out to commit British military force if necessary, the critical promise that Bush had been seeking."
	If we believe that account or, even more pertinently, the other information now in the public domain, it is nothing like what the House of Commons was then being told. Any reasonable person—that may, or may not, include the Deputy Leader of the House—would at least conclude from the dossier and the mass of information that there was a process whereby the House was not told the truth and that there is a case to answer. Some people say that that should be done through an election, but elections are conducted on many issues. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agreed at their respective party conferences that the key issue was one of trust.
	I hope indeed that the key issue in the general election is one of trust. I have the results of a System Three Scottish opinion poll that asked which party is trusted in Scotland. The fieldwork was carried out on 27 October, and the Scottish national party came top. The "don't knows" came second; then Labour; and then the Liberals. The Conservatives had 7 per cent., which seems a bit high to me, and then came the other parties. Given that the Prime Minister identified the lack of trust in him as an issue that results from the Iraq war, I hope that the election will be about trust because that would influence the result and I would be very happy indeed. I   suspect, however, that the election pattern in Scotland will not exactly reflect that question of trust; it will reflect other issues as well. An election is about many issues, not one in particular.
	Some people say that there should be a vote of confidence, but such a vote is about confidence in a Government, not the actions of an individual Minister or a Prime Minister. Many Labour Members would gladly replace the Prime Minister with the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they could, but if it came to a motion of confidence in the Government they would vote loyally with the Government. Some people say that the matter should be, or has been, settled by inquiry, but there is something profoundly unacceptable about inquiries whose terms of reference and personnel are chosen by the person who should be inquired into. That is not the case in any proper judicial process.
	Lastly, this issue comes down to whether impeachment remains to us in the parliamentary armoury. I am grateful to Lord Murray for some information that is pertinent to our consideration of that issue. In April 1977, a motion at the Young Liberals' annual conference in Weston-super-Mare was unanimously passed that called on the then Liberal leader, David Steel, to introduce a Commons motion to impeach Ronald King Murray, who was Lord Advocate for Scotland at the time. Presiding over that conference was a young man called Peter Hain, who is now, of course, the Leader of the House of Commons.
	Ronald King Murray, now Lord Murray, notes:
	"I remember the suggestion to impeach me, which was, of course, entirely misconceived . . . It is, nevertheless, perfectly permissible to move an impeachment motion in the Commons, and I do not think a debate can be avoided."
	He went on to say that, in his opinion, impeachment remains part of the parliamentary process; indeed, it is an essential part of calling a Government to account. The evidence is there and the case needs to be answered. A shadow will be cast over the body politic until we parliamentarians find a way to make progress, and if we are to act with self-respect, we shall do just that.

James Plaskitt: I wish to return the House to development and planning, which several hon. Members mentioned earlier in the debate. I particularly appreciate the opportunity to do so on this occasion because it is timely. I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing certain aspects of the planning regulations that are relevant to the issue that has arisen in my constituency.
	The issue that we are struggling with comes from a group of people whom I label demolition developers—speculative developers who come into the area in search of perfectly good existing properties, offer the owners a considerable multiple of their values, buy them up in blocks and demolish the lot, replacing them with a much denser development.
	Leamington Spa, which is part of my constituency, seems to have been targeted by demolition developers—in particular, Cala Homes—who have made repeated efforts to buy up groups of houses for exactly that sort of development. Some of the efforts we have successfully resisted; some we have not. In particular, a classic example—again, involving Cala Homes—on Lillington road was surprisingly lost on appeal, although it was fiercely resisted by the local authority and the community.
	The problem when such applications succeed is that they result in inappropriate developments that are clearly in conflict with the character of the area and that significantly alter the landscape of the town. Our objection is not simply nimbyism in the sense that we do not want development of any sort. The local authority is certainly not opposed to development. We have seen a great deal of it, a lot is taking place and there is a lot more still to come.
	We fully accept that there are pressures in our area that lead to the requirement for development and we are more than happy to respond to them. We have the benefit of enjoying a very vibrant economy, we are a highly favoured area for business location and our unemployment level is down to about 1 per cent. We completely understand the pressures that arise from that for first-time buyers. We accept the need to embrace development to respond to those pressures. However, the point is to have the right development in the right places and to allow development to take place in such a way that we can maintain the integrity of the community and architecture and, indeed, the balance of the community.
	We believe that it is possible for development and conservation to run alongside each other; they are not necessarily incompatible. The issue that we face is this: is the planning system sufficiently adequate to allow our local authority or any local authority in similar circumstances to resist the demolition developers? In searching for an answer, one inevitably begins with PPG3, as last redrafted in March 2000. At first sight, it says the right things. For example, it says:
	"Assessments of housing need which underpin local housing strategies and local plan policies are matters for local authorities to undertake in the light of their local circumstances."
	That is what I would expect to find in a planning guidance note.
	There is also helpful advice on development. PPG3 says that
	"local plans . . . should identify sites for housing and buildings for conversion and re-use."
	I would also expect to find that. The guidance is also useful on re-use, referring to policies
	"to identify and bring into housing use empty housing, vacant commercial buildings and upper floors over shops."
	Throughout the note there is much emphasis on using "previously developed land", and that is helpfully defined in the third annexe as
	"land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development."
	A helpful footnote even defines "curtilage"
	"as the area of land attached to a building. All of the land within the curtilage of the site will also be defined as previously developed."
	It has been suggested that PPG3 is the problem behind the ambitions of the demolition developers, but a careful examination of the guidance note shows that that is not the case. The crucial definitions predate the guidance and go back all the way to 1975. The definition of "previously developed land" has not changed in more than 25 years.
	What else can we do to shore up our defences against   the demolition developers? To research this, I   approached my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who wrote to me in March 2004 to provide extremely helpful clarification. His letter discussed his Department's interpretation of PPG3 and said that
	"this doesn't mean through our policies we want to give carte blanche to new development . . . Our aim is well-designed residential developments that do not compromise local environments.
	He added:
	"Outside Conservation Areas, where the emphasis is on preserving the area's original character or appearance, it would be wrong to have a blanket ban on new development or rule out intensification . . . But this doesn't mean every and any site will be suitable for housing development . . . PPG3 does not intend a free-for-all . . . Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality."
	He then helpfully went on to comment on demolition by saying that the Government
	"are looking at the ability of local authorities to control the demolition of houses as part of our review of permitted development rights."
	I referred to a recent incident on the Lillington road, where despite the council's objection the case was lost on appeal. The inspector said that local planning policy on   intensification was overridden by PPG3, but that does not square with my understanding or, I think, that of the Minister, given the letter that I cited. PPG3 does not offer any encouragement to undertake such development. Nothing in the definition of previously developed land has changed. Decisions should be taken with reference to local policy, but we have the problem that that seems to be overridden by inspectors.
	I still ask whether there is adequate protection against such speculative development. I am sure that our local planning authority could do more, although I am pleased that it has agreed to produce a supplementary planning guidance note. I have examined several such notes. For example, our neighbouring authority of Solihull has produced a note that deals effectively with the problem. However, we need further assistance from the Government, especially on demolition. I stress that perfectly good existing residential properties that are occupied, not derelict, are being demolished. The controls are insufficiently strong, although I appreciate that the situation is being examined and that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which currently governs the demolition of existing properties, is being reviewed. The Act currently permits the demolition of dwelling houses.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is undertaking a consultation on the matter. It has thrown up the fact that there is a
	"lack of control of demolition of locally important but unlisted buildings outside conservation areas."
	The consultation document seems to recommend that there should be a change because it says:
	"The desirable outcome in this case would be to enable control over demolition to a sufficient degree to protect the character and built heritage of areas  . . . an amendment to control demolition of all buildings outside conservation areas would offer important benefits in situations where other potential forms of control have been insufficient."
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us when the consultation process will conclude and when we may expect regulations on demolition to change.
	In summary, we are asking for help to build stronger defences against the demolition developers. They are more interested in profit than posterity, so we must act to defend our local architectural integrity. Our architectural integrity has made Leamington Spa attractive, so short-term profiteering should not undermine the bequest that has been handed down by previous generations. Our ancestors developed our town with sensitivity, and that is what we want to be able to do.

Tony Baldry: I hope that the House will note that today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Disraeli. It would not be right for the House to adjourn for Christmas without recalling Disraeli's many achievements and his quotation:
	"power has only one duty—to secure the social welfare of the People".
	The House might think that the matter that I wish to raise is local, but it has wider ramifications. I want to   draw it to the House's attention because I never want it to be said that I was wise after the event. A couple of years ago, when asylum seekers were coming through the Channel tunnel from Sangatte, the then Home Secretary responded to nightly television coverage of the event by deciding to establish what were initially to be several trial accommodation centres for asylum seekers throughout the country. He decided that the centres would be situated outside the south-east on land owned by the Government. At the time, some 80,000 asylum seekers were coming into the country every three months.There was a trawl of the Government estate and a number of sites were identified, including one in my constituency on the outskirts of Bicester.
	The House will understand that for the two neighbouring villages the prospect of an accommodation centre housing 750 refugees, when their combined population was about 750, was not met with unalloyed joy. It seemed that the right response was to petition Parliament for a public inquiry, which is what people did. A petition was signed by about 15,000 people, asking for nothing more than that there should be a public inquiry into the Government's proposals.
	In due course, a public inquiry was held. One of the important things about a public inquiry is that people have to turn up and put forward rational arguments. One cannot make nimbyist or xenophobic arguments. They have to be based on why such a development should not go ahead on planning grounds. The Government and Home Office Ministers thought that it would be a shoo-in because the inspector would rubber-stamp their recommendations. In the event, having heard the evidence, which took some days to give, the inspector recommended to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the development should not go ahead on a number of grounds.
	The Deputy Prime Minister overruled that and decided that because it was Government policy, he would grant planning permission. The matter became a subject for judicial review, first to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal, which found in favour of the Deputy Prime Minister, simply on the narrow grounds that because the land originally belonged to the Ministry of Defence, and was therefore Crown land, the Government could do whatever they liked with it without reference to planning norms, which should concern every Member of Parliament.
	Time has moved on, and I hope that the new Home Secretary will take time over the Christmas break to review the relevant papers and consider whether it is not time to think again. The number of those claiming asylum status is down to 8,000 every three months— a substantial fall. The cost of building the accommodation centre is estimated at about £60 million, which is a substantial sum.
	The Government have never managed to find a single organisation to support the project. The Refugee Council said only the week before last that it was wholly inappropriate for the needs of refugees. The idea that one sticks 750 asylum seekers in a transit registration processing camp in the middle of the countryside for up to six months is inappropriate. It is also a curious use of public money when Bullingdon prison, just over the road from the accommodation centre site, now houses 900 men when it was built to house 600. It is substantially overcrowded. We are told that the Home Office budget is so strapped that the governor has no discretionary spending. It is curious that the Government can find £60 million to build an asylum centre that no one who is concerned with the welfare of refugees believes is appropriate when we cannot find money to ensure that our prisons are kept in proper repair and are not substantially overcrowded.
	As there has been such a substantial change in circumstances, with the number of migrants claiming asylum status dropping from 80,000 every three months to 8,000—a tenfold decrease—I hope that the Home Secretary and the relevant Minister of State will use the Christmas break to consider whether the centre is necessary. I ask them to think again.
	That is the thrust of my remarks, and I hope that the Minister will promise to raise the matter with his Home Office colleagues.

Diane Abbott: It is a great pleasure to speak in this Christmas Adjournment debate. Christmas is a time for families, and I want to spend a few moments this afternoon reminding the House of the position of the families of the British nationals who are still detained in Guantanamo Bay.
	As Members of the House know, the United States continues to detain hundreds of people in its naval facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The first of them were transferred there towards the end of 2001, so a number have been there for over three years. Originally there   were nine UK nationals held in Guantanamo Bay. Fortunately, earlier this year five of them were released, but there are still four British passport holders there. They include Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg and Richard Belmar. Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbasi and Richard Belmar are based in London, and I have had the privilege of meeting their families. The House of Commons needs to imagine what those families are going through this Christmas knowing that their loved ones are holed up in Guantanamo Bay with no immediate prospect of release.
	As the US lawyer of one of the British detainees has said, these are individuals who have suffered a great deal of physical abuse, stress and torture, because—and this is the main point that I want to make to the House—all the evidence suggests that torture is going on in Guantanamo Bay. The essential position is this: by these detentions the United States Government have made a deliberate attempt to create a legal black hole into which they can place any foreigner for as long as they choose. The theory developed by Pentagon lawyers was that detainees held at Guantanamo could be treated entirely as the Executive saw fit. Indeed, in argument in the federal courts, the lawyer appearing for the United States authorities asserted that even torture, if it was perpetrated by the US authorities at Guantanamo, would not fall within the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
	When the lawyer said that, the world did not know about the scandal of Abu Ghraib, but it is now clear that the disgraceful conduct there had its roots in an interrogation system first developed and used at Guantanamo, and still, as far as we know, being used there. The techniques used there, as has come out in recent months, include stress; duress; manipulation by subjecting detainees to extremes of light and heat; threatening with dogs; attempts to force detainees to sign false statements; sexual assault; stripping; lengthy interrogation of detainees while they are shackled to the floor like dogs; failure to allow detainees to use toilet facilities with the result that they excrete on themselves; chaining detainees in a hog-tie position; mocking detainees' religious beliefs; and withholding basic items such as clothing and blankets.
	It is no wonder that the Red Cross, which has the most access to the people held in Guantanamo, has dubbed that treatment torture. The treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, including the four British nationals to whom I referred, flouts every major human rights convention that the US and Britain have signed since the second world war. It also subverts the fundamental protections of liberty dating as far back as the 13th century and the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration, despite the findings of their own Supreme Court, continue to evade the application of any due process to the detainees. Guantanamo is the United States' domestic gulag.
	We know from those British detainees who have been released, the young men who lived in Tipton, what is the US authorities' approach to evidence and confession. Two of the British detainees released, Rasul and Iqbal, had, according to the Americans, confessed to meeting Osama bin Laden and appearing in a video with him. Fortunately for them, MI5 established that their confessions, which the US insisted were genuine and could be the basis of a prosecution, were not only unreliable but false because there was a video showing that the two men, far from meeting Osama bin Laden, were working in a shop in Birmingham at the time. We can only imagine the sort of torture to which the two young men were subjected to force them to make confessions that could have resulted, had they not been released, in their losing their lives. We can only imagine the current conditions for British nationals and others who although not British nationals were British residents, and who are still held in Guantanamo Bay.
	Even when one talks to Ministers, one encounters misconceptions about what is happening at Guantanamo Bay. One of the most common things one hears about the British nationals held at Guantanamo are that they are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time—what were they doing in Afghanistan in the first place? It is important to note that two of them were not in Afghanistan at all: Martin Mubanga was arrested in Zambia and Moazzam Begg in Pakistan. The notion that George W. Bush and some Ministers like to put about, that the detainees were scooped from the killing fields of Afghanistan, is quite false. In that context, it is also important to remember that, at the commencement of the Afghanistan conflict, there was in the country a large community of aid workers and religious pilgrims who had no military intent. When the American forces offered huge financial rewards to local Afghans in exchange for the capture of foreign fighters, many of those people—simply because they were foreign, not because they had anything to do with al-Qaeda—were scooped up and handed over to obtain the money.
	As for the security threat posed by the detainees, three years after America put them behind bars it seems clear that the only information coming out of Guantanamo Bay has been extracted in the form of confessions. Against the background of international organisations categorising the interrogation techniques used there as "tantamount to torture", and given that the confession made by Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal was proved to be false by MI5, there is real reason to believe that no weight can be attached to the information and that, furthermore, the confessions would not stand up in a court of law.
	There was a time when no British Government would have stood by and allowed British nationals to be detained for so long without being charged and with no prospect either of being charged or of due process. No one is suggesting that the men should simply be released; all that is being suggested is that, as British nationals, they are entitled to due process. Yet despite the fact that   Britain is supposed to be America's closest ally in the war against terrorism, we cannot even obtain due   process for our own nationals. I believe that Guantanamo Bay, like Abu Ghraib, undermines the moral case presented for the war against terror.
	I would not want to leave the subject of America's very own gulag without mentioning Belmarsh. We have heard what our own judges have had to say about the Muslim detainees at Belmarsh prison. At the weekend, newspapers reported that the evidence on which they are being held is mostly based on hearsay and guilt by association. I can do no better than quote what a Member of the other place said about the laws that led to the detention of those people in Belmarsh. Lord Hoffman said:
	"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
	Whether the people in question are British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay or the unfortunates detained in Belmarsh under laws that our own judges have stated are contrary to the European convention on human rights, it cannot be right, nor can it strengthen our war against terror, to hold people indefinitely without charging them or allowing them access to proper legal representation, and without due process. In the case of Guantanamo, we cannot ignore the serious allegations of torture. We, the British Parliament, must not let another Christmas go past with British nationals being held in that gulag in Cuba without due process and in the shadow of torture.

Bob Spink: Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As Christmas approaches, I shall speak about the hospice movement and especially about fair funding. I   have raised the issue many times in the House, as hon. Members may recall. I shall continue to do so until there is a satisfactory solution. The national average statutory funding level for adult hospices is about 28 per cent., for children's hospices it is 5 per cent. and for Littlehaven's children's hospice in my constituency it is 1.8 per cent. This is wrong.
	It is outrageous that the Government have tried to   shift responsibility to primary care trusts. The Government must at least have the courage to admit to their own policy on hospice funding. Their policy, and the solution to that policy, lies entirely within Government control, yet they refuse to use their powers to change this untenable situation. Littlehaven gets 1.8 per cent. funding from the Exchequer—that is a shameful and almost an insulting amount—yet there are no limits on spending on bogus asylum seekers: social support alone has grown to more than £1 billion from about £400 million since Labour took power in 1997, while funding for my local hospice has fallen over that same period. Local people are aware of these facts.
	The Prime Minister has acknowledged that 1.8 per cent. is unacceptable for my hospice, but he has done nothing, after years of my raising the matter with him personally. We are grateful, of course, for short-term fixes such as lottery money and single time-limited grants, but we need more than that. We need long-term core funding that is guaranteed, which we from the voluntary and charitable sectors can supplement through our fund-raising activities.
	Conservative policy is to make available 40 per cent. funding for both adult and children's hospices, and I   urge Labour to match that. If it does not, I do not see why anyone in Castle Point should vote for its parachuted-in candidate on 5 May. Politics aside, we can all admire the dedication, care and love of all those who work in the hospice movement. Similarly, we admire those volunteers who raise funds to support it. We can all thank the press—the Yellow Advertiser, the Evening Echo and the Island Times—for their campaigns to support our hospices and fair funding.
	The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr.   Plaskitt) talked about demolition-development, increased densities and destroying communities and well-designed settlements. I could not agree more with him, but he seems not to have made the House aware that the greatest demolition-developer of them all in the south-east is the Government. The Government are seeking to destroy our environment and urban spaces by forcing on my community in Castle Point, for instance, an additional 4,000 houses. There are massive building plans throughout Essex, which is a betrayal of the people of Essex.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for increasing building targets. He seems not to understand that this building will bring in hundreds of thousands of cars throughout Essex. There will be more sewage and waste to be disposed of along with more demand on hospitals, dentists, schools and police. There will be more pollution. This adds up to a disaster for Essex and for my community of Castle Point. That is the key reason why locals will be voting against the parachuted-in Labour candidate at Castle Point, to frustrate the Government's plans to build on our open spaces.
	A key local issue is law and order. Under-age drinking is an important factor in antisocial behaviour. I am delighted that what was my private Member's Bill is now one of the most used Acts. Probably it is used almost every day and every night in most constituencies throughout the country. It is a key and indispensable weapon to enable society to deal with antisocial behaviour and street crime. I congratulate the Government on introducing antisocial behaviour orders, which are a key weapon, and also on the exclusion orders and curfew orders, which we in my constituency were one of the first communities to use, and we have used them extremely successfully, but there are two little problems developing.
	When young hooligans or thugs—young kids who are   bit misguided, as I was when I was a youngster—are given an ASBO and they breach it seriously, the courts must come down on them like a ton of bricks. If the courts give them 20 hours' community service and it has taken the police 120 hours to prepare the case and get it to court, that is a joke and does not give the right message to the other misguided kids who are going the wrong way. I would like to see the courts take much more decisive action. A few custodial sentences to some of the young thugs who take early action to breach their orders would send a strong message to all the others, and the orders will work a lot better.
	The second aspect is legal aid. The Government will not tell us how much or by how many people, but legal aid is being used so that young thugs can resist antisocial behaviour orders and to appeal them when they are given. That is a misuse of public funds, time and effort, and we should be developing new systems. I know that the Government have taken the matter on board, and if they need to introduce measures in the House to deal with these matters I hope that those will receive a fair wind from the whole House.
	On law and order, I must mention that funding for Essex police is not what it should be. In order simply to stand still, Essex police force needs another £2 million. I see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is as always in his place, nodding agreement, and I thank him for that.
	One of the key duties of a Member of Parliament is to   care for and be an advocate for vulnerable people. One of the most vulnerable groups is the sick and frail   elderly, particularly those who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease, and from the impact of strokes. I note that this week the health service ombudsman brought out a report entitled "NHS Funding for Long Term Care". It is a follow-up to the report published in February 2003. The new report takes forward the work that was done in the earlier one, which found:
	"Some disabled, frail or elderly people, who were in fact eligible, had . . . been denied funding of their health care and accommodation by the NHS and had paid for means-tested services arranged by their local authority."
	The ombudsman said that health authorities
	"should trace those people who might be affected . . . and where justified make restitution".
	That has not happened as extensively as it might have done. It is not entirely the Government's fault, but they need to refocus on the issue and ensure the Department of Health is doing all it can to achieve that. The new report makes it clear that sufficient efforts have not been made to trace all those people, and those efforts should now be made.
	The report also recommends that the Department of Health should review its guidance, making it much clearer who is eligible for funding. That is what the 2003 report stated, but the new report found that the   Government did not do this. I am sure that they will study the report and try to redress the problem. The new report states:
	"We believe there is a compelling case for establishing clear, national, minimum criteria for determining who is eligible for continuing care funding."
	I have a major case in my constituency that I have raised on Adjournment debates on a couple of occasions and through many, many questions. I refer to the case of   Derek Curran, which has been covered a number of times in the local press and in the national press—in the Daily Mail two weeks ago, for instance. His care is now being paid for—it should have been paid for years ago—but his family have not yet had restitution. That must be paid. The case must be looked at, and all the other cases that are looking to it for guidance will then be able to follow.
	It is entirely appropriate for the House to try to defend vulnerable people as we approach Christmas, and there is no more vulnerable group than the homeless in society, so I congratulate Shelter, the Salvation Army and all the other people who work with the homeless. I   wish them in particular a happy Christmas.

Jane Griffiths: I want to wish everyone present a very happy Christmas—none of this American happy holidays nonsense! I want to raise a couple of matters that have arisen over the past year that are important to my constituency. I will talk about my constituents' hopes for the future, as we should at this time of year.
	I shall start with Crossrail. Since I took part in a debate on the matter in the House just over a year ago, quite a lot has happened. For example, the report by Adrian Montague that we were waiting for then was published this year. Throughout the history of Crossrail, Reading had been envisaged as a western terminus for the scheme, but last year, the company taking forward the proposal—Cross London Rail Links—envisaged the western spur going to Heathrow. There were all sorts of other barmy proposals, such as Richmond, so it was pleasing when the second Montague report reconfirmed that Crossrail offered good value for money and, even better, that the barmy proposal to go to Richmond was precisely that, and should be junked. According to the report, where to the west should Crossrail go? Its conclusion was that the best proposal in terms of financial value was for it to terminate at Reading.
	It was therefore a disappointment and a shock when consultation was announced by the Secretary of State for Transport in July on proposals by the Crossrail team for a route that terminated at Maidenhead. Why did that happen? One reason put forward by the Department for Transport was that Windsor and Maidenhead borough council had been screaming and shouting, jumping up and down and demanding that the scheme should come to Maidenhead. At the same time we should remember that, according to the Department for Transport, Reading borough council had not bothered to do anything. Why would the council not   bother to campaign for something that would so obviously benefit Reading? To answer that, I am afraid that it will be necessary briefly to intrude on some internal Reading Labour party grief.
	The councillor with responsibility for transport for the past two or three years has been Councillor John Howarth—not a man that I would invite to my house to repair my toilet seat. In 2002, however, I invited him and a number of other key players in the Reading area to a meeting to lobby Crossrail to urge it to come to Reading. He attended that meeting and was very unenthusiastic. He spoke only about the Thames Trains services that would be lost if the Crossrail project were to go ahead. As we know, of course, Thames Trains is no more.
	In the two years between that meeting and the July announcement, Councillor Howarth made no statement in support of Crossrail coming to Reading; nor did he communicate with Crossrail in support of that. The only communications between Reading borough council and anyone about Crossrail were official responses to the different consultations over that period.
	Crossrail is something that I have worked to see happen for virtually the whole time since I became involved in public life in 1989. On my election in 1997, it was one of the key issues that I said I would pursue for the benefit of Reading. It is a very sad fact that, since 1997, Councillor Howarth has been leading attempts to deselect me from my position as the MP for Reading, East—and he succeeded, eventually. It meant that he could not work with me. He could not tell anyone that I had ever done anything good or achieved any successes. The whole thing is really sad. I believe that Councillor Howarth is not fit to hold public office.
	Hon. Members will be relieved to discover that another factor related to the Crossrail decision has nothing to do with Reading Labour party. The other reason why Crossrail is not currently planned to terminate at Reading is money. In order for Crossrail to   agree to Reading as its western spur, it would be necessary to electrify the track from Maidenhead to Reading. The chairman of Crossrail has said that will add £300 million to the cost of the scheme. That is the main reason cited publicly by the Crossrail team for not choosing Reading, but for a scheme costing up to £10 billion, £300 million is peanuts and cannot, in itself, be the real reason for not selecting Reading.
	Reading is a major hub on the rail link connecting the   main east-west routes from London to the main north-south routes from Birmingham. Outside London, only Birmingham New Street is a busier station than Reading in terms of people travelling through it every day. Why miss out on connecting with all these other opportunities, and end at Maidenhead, where there are connections with . . . nothing? No: such opportunities should not be missed out on when their cost adds up to only 3 per cent. of the total scheme. It is clear that some other factor must be involved. In fact there are two, and they are no secret. Earlier this month, I met Crossrail representatives, who told me that the two factors were Reading station, and resignalling.
	Network Rail has plans to resignal the area around Reading station, but they will be carried out in the future. I do not think that Network Rail has identified a pot of money in a future budget, so what could be better than having Crossrail pay for the resignalling? Crossrail understands that, and does not want to fund a scheme that, in the end, Network Rail will carry out. Therefore, the second reason why Crossrail will not come to Reading is that it does not want to pay for resignalling. That needs doing but, if Crossrail came to Reading, it might have to bear the cost.
	Similarly, Reading is known to be a major bottleneck in the rail system. Its main capacity problems are caused by conflicts between north-south train movements, and east-west movements. The borough council and the Strategic Rail Authority have worked together on proposals to tackle those problems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave an answer to a parliamentary question, in which he made it clear that the council and the SRA were preparing a business case for major capacity enhancements at Reading station. Those enhancements would require an order under the transport and works legislation, application for which would be made in 2005. The business case will form part of that application.
	If speculation in the local media about the scheme's scope is anywhere near the mark, it would be understandable that Crossrail would be concerned about having the scheme added in to its proposals. As a result, Crossrail—which could deliver substantial benefits to Reading—might not be coming to Reading. Why? Because there are other proposals that would improve the rail service at Reading, but the Crossrail people are worried that they would have to pay for those other improvements as part of their own scheme.
	Is it not a topsy-turvy world when transport improvements do not happen because of other transport   improvements? Could there be a better example of the madness created by rail privatisation? Crossrail will not come to Reading because Network Rail wants to improve signals at Reading, and because the SRA wants to improve capacity at Reading station.
	However, I am pleased to say that, now that my deselection has taken place, Reading borough council is   once more backing Crossrail. It is disappointing that,   although the plan to terminate the service at Maidenhead was known in April, it has taken the council until the beginning of October to pass a motion in support of having Reading as Crossrail's western terminus. Even so, I am very glad that that has happened.
	Although it is disappointing that the council responded to the consultation only on the very last day, I am glad that it has at least made a response. The delay meant that there was not time to build a proper campaign, with all parties working together. Yet I am pleased that the council has finally written to the Secretary of State asking for the route between Maidenhead and Scour's lane in west Reading to be safeguarded. As a result, if it is possible to change Crossrail's mind and have it come to Reading, nothing can be built over the line or alongside it that might prevent or jeopardise that.
	A cynic might also find it interesting that we had to wait from April to October for a response to the Crossrail consultation, but that the request for safeguarding was submitted within two weeks. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that I   wanted to talk about hopes for the future. As far as Crossrail is concerned, I want representatives from the SRA, Network Rail and Crossrail to gather in one room to talk about the different proposals for Reading, when they can be implemented and who will be responsible for paying for them.
	If Reading borough council is serious about Crossrail now, one never knows—it might even come along and join us.

Lindsay Hoyle: Behind you!

Julian Lewis: I shall not look, despite the hon. Gentleman's attempts to be helpful on the question of how many ears my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) possesses. At the last count, it was three.
	It was a real pleasure to see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) back on top form. It was even more wonderful to hear him extolling the virtues of building a business park in his constituency. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) reminded us of people who are battling illnesses at this normally joyful time of year. I know that we are all thinking about some people in that situation at this time and I would like to mention the Rev. Terry Abernethy, who is the much loved vicar of Beaulieu; Councillor Allan Glass, who is a prominent figure on Fawley parish council; and Mr.   John Gulliver MBE, who when a teenager fought the Nazis as a Royal Navy serviceman and for many years has been the mainstay of the Totton Conservative club in my constituency. All those people are battling serious illnesses and our thoughts are with them, as I am sure other hon. Members' thoughts are with similar people of whom they are aware.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr.   Amess) touched on a wide range of injustices and the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) concentrated on a singular injustice, that of the Maxwell pensioners. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) went into the question of exploitative and unregulated middlemen who batten off claimants and skim off much of the money to which they are entitled. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) voiced concerns shared by many of us about changes in planning regulations that have led to unsuitable developments in towns and villages.
	Many of the local campaigns and concerns that I have listed so far speak volumes for the single member constituency system that we have. How many of those concerns would have been raised in this House if we were anonymous Members from some list system with no particular patch to look after?
	The concerns that have been raised also include more widely political issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) talked of the catalogue of incompetence surrounding Yarl's Wood. We heard from the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob   Russell) about what he regards as a culture of secrecy in affairs in his constituency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about prison overcrowding and from the hon. and irrepressible Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about the naming of regiments and the importance of promoting the defence industry.
	Some of the most broad political issues have also been raised, notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), who mentioned Zimbabwe and Sudan, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), who raised questions about the style and modus operandi of Ministers, to which subject I hope to return if time permits.
	We heard a little bit about anniversaries, and it is worth noting that in a few days' time it will be the 25th   anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If we cast our mind back to the catalogue of action and reaction that flowed from that, it should give us pause to think about how unpredictable the development of international conflict and international relations can be. I am sure that if the Kremlin leaders had had the slightest inkling of what they were about to unleash when they set about that invasion in December 1979, they would have thought again.
	The overriding theme, and the most concerted attack on the Government today, has been the question of Iraq. Not everyone attacked the Government on Iraq. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) was candid about the effects of the invasion and about the fact that it had turned out to be a much tougher proposition than he predicted. By contrast, his hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) remained firm in the view that they have always taken—against the invasion and its consequences.
	The main theme was articulated by what may be termed a rainbow alliance, including the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs.   Browning) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). If there was a single theme that united those disparate Members of Parliament it was that the Government by their actions have undermined the concept of trust that must exist between a Prime Minister and a Government on the one hand and the people of the country on the other, on any issue of war and peace.
	If the aim was to change the regime in Iraq, that should have been both stated and debated. Had that   been the case, I suspect that many of the people in   that rainbow coalition who spoke so eloquently today would have found themselves on the opposite side of the argument. I have always believed that it was right to get rid of Saddam Hussein and I do not resile from that for a moment, but it was not right to do so in a way that undermined trust in the intelligence services, in the Government and in the alliance of the west on which so much has depended in the past and on which so much will continue to depend in the future.
	Why did that happen? Obviously, there are many factors, but I strongly suspect that the single most important one was the decision to allow the process of propaganda and spin, which had worked so well for the   Government in the domestic sphere, out on to the international stage. The process was further corrupted by the use of civil servants as some sort of air-raid shelter to try to protect the Government's skin. It is not sensible to try to use a body such as the Joint Intelligence Committee—a body of impartial professionals—if one wishes to advocate something as serious as a political and military attack. Such bodies should be kept behind the scenes. The Government should be able to say, "We have taken advice from the intelligence services and it has led us to this or that conclusion"; they should not seek to pull those services out of the shadows and shelter behind them. The Government should certainly not then seek to tell them how to rewrite their reports. Unelected special advisers, who are allowed to give orders to the professional civil service, must never again be appointed, and if there is a change of Government, and my party comes into government, they never will be appointed again.
	The Hutton inquiry showed that crucial revelations were encapsulated in vital e-mails; one from Jonathan Powell, in particular, comes to mind, but there were many others. Have the Government learned from what happened at Hutton and afterwards? I do not think that they have, or if they have, they have learned the wrong lessons. The Budd inquiry, which reported today, emphasises the fact that a key fax is missing.
	What is proposed to deal with a situation in which e-mails are key to one inquiry and a missing fax is key to another? What we have read about moves to delete automatically e-mails en masse when they are three months old and the parliamentary answers we have received from Departments about how many files have   been shredded in the years leading up to the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act on 1 January have serious implications not only for how government is carried out but even for the ability of future historians to follow the paper trail and find out what the Government were doing at a given time.
	Let us just concentrate for a moment on what was said as a result of the Budd report. The BBC reports that Sir Alan Budd concluded:
	"I believe I have been able to establish a chain of events linking Mr. Blunkett to the change in the decision on Mrs. Casalme's application."
	But, he said, it was
	"not a straightforward matter",
	because few involved in it could recall the details. Well, if there is such a bout of collective amnesia, surely it is all the more important that e-mails should be preserved and faxes should be preserved, and not deleted and shredded respectively.
	The report says:
	"I believe there are two broad possibilities: Mr. Blunkett was seeking special help for Mrs. Quinn's nanny (or) he was raising the case as an example of the poor performance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
	I do not have direct evidence that allows me to choose between the two possibilities."
	That means that even if the second possibility was the true one, we shall never know because proper records were not kept.
	I think that the judge-led inquiry that my party called for would have been more sensible than the inquiry that we got, and my party certainly supports the suggestion of Alastair Graham, a distinguished retired trade unionist, that there should be a standing body for future inquiries and that membership of it should be agreed between Government and Opposition at the start of each Parliament.
	I have said that I am concerned about the culture of records destruction, but I am not alone in that. The Information Commissioner is reported by the excellent Gallery News service to have said today, speaking of the Freedom of Information Act:
	"The new Act of Parliament makes it very clear that to destroy records in order to prevent their disclosure becomes a criminal offence",
	but he said that there was already clear guidance on the retention of e-mails contained in a code of practice from the Lord Chancellor:
	"If in doubt, retain, that has been the long-standing principle of the civil service and public authorities."
	We like to think in this place that we are involved in finding out everything that is available at the present time, and we like to think that whether we succeed or fail in putting one over on the Government or the Opposition, people in the future will be able to see what the truth really was. We look to the Government to treat the legislation that is coming into force on 1 January as an excuse to be more open, not as a reason to destroy the historical record.
	On that happy note, I am delighted to join in the general wishes of a happy Christmas to all concerned.

Edward Garnier: I am very grateful to the honourable and elderly Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for coming out of retirement to intervene on my intervention. May I ask the Minister to explain himself? The very attitude that lies behind his remarks demonstrates what is wrong with this Government. They think that it is their right to give the people freedoms and rights to information. It is our right as elected Members of Parliament to question him and his co-Ministers. The balance of inquiry is entirely the wrong way around in his mouth. It is we Back Benchers who are entitled to cross-examine the Government; not the Government who are entitled to give us things out of a bountiful nature.

Tom Cox: I welcome the debate. We all know of the vital importance of safeguarding the welfare and protection of children and young people. Many issues concern youngsters. When I was a councillor in local government, I was the chairman of the children's committee, and as a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe I was for three years   the Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly's Sub-Committee on Children. The Sub-Committee discussed and reported on a wide range of issues affecting children and young people, just some of which included abuse—both physical and sexual—the trafficking of youngsters, adoption, care in orphanages, street children, the abduction of children by a parent and child soldiers.
	Last week, The Sun gave major coverage to the abuses that youngsters face in this country. One word describes that for me: appalling. Today, in 2004, such abuse is still happening. Two children each week are killed by adults who are supposedly caring for them. The paper said that such people are "getting away with murder". As we know, those youngsters cannot speak for themselves and are defenceless. The paper went on to detail the abuses, but sadly many of us know of them.
	In recent years, we have become more aware of the abuses that children and young people have faced, often while in care, at school or in the family. They were often abused by the people who were supposed to protect them. Those youngsters are now adults, but the effect of the abuse is still with them. We knew little about that for years because the youngsters were told a variety of things to keep them quiet about the abuses that they suffered. They were told, "No one would believe you", "This is just our secret", "You would be sent away" or "You would break up our family." So, out of fear, youngsters said and did nothing.
	In recent years, there have been more and more cases in which the people who did the abusing, often many years ago, are brought before our courts and, if found guilty of such charges, are sent to prison for a long time. Often in such cases, the prosecution case is supported by the youngsters who had been abused and who are now adults. That is what this debate is about: adults abused in childhood.
	Hardly a day goes by without hearing about child abuse that took place long ago. The definition of abuse given by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is neglect, physical injury, sexual or emotional abuse inflicted or knowingly not prevented which causes significant harm or death. We know that abuse has that effect on children and young people, often for the whole of their lives. I do not know whether the Minister has spoken to a man or woman who was abused as a child, but whatever events they talk about, it is always a harrowing story. I could relate many experiences of people who have been abused, but I shall give just one.
	A woman, now an adult, was sexually abused by her father as a child. First, she was told that it was "our secret." Then it was, "No one would believe you", followed by, "Tell anyone and you will break up our family." The girl said and did nothing. It was not until she was a teenager that she stood up to her father and said, "Stop abusing me or I will go to the police." He stopped the abuse. That lady later got married and has a daughter aged six. Her father and mother are alive and still live together. Her mother—her daughter's grandmother—often asks her, "Let our grandchild come and stay with us over the weekend." The mother never does and never will because she fears that her father who abused her—an abuse of which to this day her mother knows nothing—would attempt to abuse his granddaughter. What a horrendous background to have to live with.
	Who can a woman with that kind of experience and fear talk to about her deep concerns? Who can she trust? From whom can she seek support? There is a charity—the National Association for People Abused in Childhood—that people who have been abused as a youngster can trust, talk to and seek guidance from, often for the first time in their lives. Those people can be 60, 70 or 80 years of age. The great burden that they have carried for much of their lives is often lifted because they have talked about it. Many have suffered great emotional problems because of that secret, now released for the first time.
	We often hear about counselling being offered to people, especially young people, who have been involved in an accident or who know someone who has been killed. That is welcome. The advice and support offered by counselling is obviously a great benefit. No one can dispute that such support and advice is not needed by people, whatever their age may now be, who were abused when younger. It is estimated that more than 20 per cent. of all adults have experienced some kind of physical or sexual abuse in childhood. These are people who, whatever their age, carry the burden of those painful childhood memories every day of their life. The question is what we as a society are to do to help them.
	In 1996, the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse headed by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn recommended the setting up of a national organisation for adult survivors of abuse. The inquiry received more than 1,000 letters from people who had been abused as youngsters. The National Association for People Abused in Childhood has received more than 20,000 phone calls to its helpline in the last two years. All who phone express the relief that they feel in having someone to talk to, to seek advice from and to give them support. What the helpline provides is of enormous value to those people.
	I put the question to the Minister: who else could provide such a service? A doctor? Hardly—we know the   pressures that doctors are so often under. Other organisations who work with children and young people have a different role, and they value very much the work of the national association. Often they will refer people to it.
	However, and this is the reason for the debate, the valuable work that the association does is now under threat. It has run out of money. The Department of Health grant of £150,000 over three years ends next April, and the helpline, regrettably, closed in October. The funding that the association received was given under the Department's section 64 scheme. I understand that the Government's scheme for victims of sexual offending is a possible source of future funding for the association, but there is concern about what will be the   criteria for funding from that source. I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that today.
	The association has, to its credit, successfully sought   funding from other sources. I know who has made a financial contribution. Contributors include foundations, trusts, companies and individuals. The donations range from thousands of pounds to smaller amounts. Whatever the sum, all donations have been most welcome and have helped greatly. While the donations have meant a great deal, what also counts is the respect and support given to the association by those organisations and individuals who value its work.
	As MPs, the Minister and I know from our own constituencies of groups who seek funding for their work and demonstrate the efforts that they have already made to raise money. We know what it means when other organisations, be it the local council, a charity or indeed a Government Department, are approached for further funding and see the efforts that have already been made by the body to raise money itself. That is what the national association has been doing and it still is, but it cannot continue its valuable work without future Government funding.
	I can supply to the Minister moving letters from people who have been helped by the association. They are the reason the work that the helpline provided must be restarted. The national association is established and highly respected—if it were not, it would not have received Government funding in the first place. It put it to my hon. Friend that we cannot—indeed, must not—let the association fade away. I make a clear request that early in the new year she meet me and representatives of NAPAC to discuss the issues more fully. That will give all of us the opportunity that this debate, because of the restriction of time, does not allow us.
	I shall await my hon. Friend's reply this evening on the issues that I have spoken about—above all, the future role of the national association and the work in which it is involved. I say again, we must not allow the work of that organisation to fade away for lack of adequate funding from the Government.

Melanie Johnson: It is with pleasure that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) on introducing a debate on a subject so important to many men, women and children throughout England. I appreciate and share his concerns about meeting their needs.
	First, by way of an overall response, let me talk for a few minutes about the extent of child abuse and domestic violence and their effects on the health of victims and their families. Domestic violence, child sexual and physical abuse and rape occur in all social classes and ethnic groups, but the prevalence rates of child sexual abuse are high—20 to 30 per cent. of girls and 5 to 10 per cent. of boys—and up to 20 per cent. of children are regularly subjected to physical violence. Research shows that in at least 40 per cent. of domestic violence cases, there is also child physical and sexual abuse involving the same perpetrator—usually the father or the father figure. Thousands of children witness domestic violence every day—not just hearing verbal abuse but seeing their mother being physically abused and sexually assaulted. My hon. Friend commented on the number of deaths of children that occur.
	All of that has a huge effect on the general health, sexual health and overall well-being of victims. In addition, every week two women are killed as a result of domestic violence. Many studies show that domestic violence impairs children's emotional, behavioural and cognitive development. Its effects include anxiety, fear, withdrawal, highly sexualised and aggressive behaviour, reduced educational achievement, failure to acquire social competence, antisocial behaviour and use of drugs. None of us disputes or fails to recognise the sort of problem that my hon. Friend has described.
	It might be helpful if I outline some of the Department's current work before dealing with the   funding issue. Work is going on between the Department of Health and the National Institute for Mental Health in England on establishing a violence, abuse and mental health programme. The whole of that programme is being implemented in partnership with the Home Office. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be keen to learn that its objective is to address the health and mental health implications of domestic violence and child sexual abuse. Over the current financial year it will be working with the Home Office to match existing services, of which the phone line of the National Association of People Abused in Childhood is one. It will be establishing expert groups to manage the development of service guidelines in this area.
	Clearly, NAPAC will have a role to play in contributing to this exercise, but as one of the many organisations that are providing services of this sort. It is perhaps worth while mentioning that there are some 117 different helplines nationally to provide information and support of one sort or another to those who have been abused. There is an extensive network of different organisations that is currently providing support.
	The Department wants also to ensure that issues involving the interests of adults abused in childhood are recognised through our White Paper on public health. It has ensured that the issue is also being addressed in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on self-harm and post-traumatic stress syndrome, too.
	There is a great deal of work going on in the voluntary sector and there are several relevant documents, including the mental health national service framework, the national suicide prevention strategy, the women's mental health strategy into the mainstream and the implementation guidance from that, the personality disorder policy, "No Longer a Diagnosis of Exclusion", and the public health White Paper, "Choosing Health".
	My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department of Health, in partnership with the National Institute for Mental Health, is developing the programme that I have already mentioned. In September, the Department drew   up a new strategic agreement with the NHS, the voluntary sector and the community sector. This agreement, exclusively between the Department, the NHS and the voluntary and community sectors, will benefit patients, carers and service users by providing them with real alternatives so that they can choose services that are best suited to their needs. We recognise the tremendous role that these sectors play in the provision of our mental health services. That is why they are being recognised in the way that I have described. I   am sure that every Member of this place has good examples of the way in which services are being provided by these sectors.
	The Department has also supported and funded a considerable volume of work through the section 64 grant scheme, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Government publicly supported NAPAC through section 64 funding over the past three years. My hon. Friend mentioned the £50,000 a year that was made available to do that. As a result, it has been possible to run the helpline, but sadly, recently, it fell into some difficulties of both a financial and a management sort. That led to the slightly premature closure of the helpline. As a consequence of that, the Department's health officials have met the chair of the organisation and its development officer to discuss how to help the organisation to move forward.
	The Department is working closely with the Home Office in supporting the violence and abuse voluntary sector. NAPAC has been invited to contribute to the   development of future services, especially the development of the national telephone helpline.
	Ministers in the Home Office have already suggested that NAPAC might want to bid for Home Office funding in addition. However, the Department understands that NAPAC is liaising with the Survivors Trust about the future of the helpline. The trust represents some 80 organisations that provide specialist services and operates an umbrella organisation for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. It is a leading voluntary sector organisation nationally to advise on developing services in this area. It was established with financial support from the National Institute for Mental Health in England to support the work of the expert group that we have with that institute, and it is also in receipt of section 64 mental health grant core funding for 2004–05.
	We are therefore doing a huge amount to help adults who were abused in childhood. It is a live agenda, which means that a great deal of new work is being done in collaboration with the voluntary and community sectors, and work is also going on between the Department and the Home Office and with the Survivors Trust. That should reassure my hon. Friend that we take the issue seriously.
	The new mental health programme aims to address the mental health implications of domestic violence, child sexual abuse and sexual violence for services and professionals working to identify and respond to the needs of the victims of rape and sexual assault and the survivors of child sexual abuse. We have recognised that NAPAC has a role to play in that. Unfortunately, as I   mentioned, we recently became aware of some of the internal financial and organisational difficulties that NAPAC has been experiencing, which led to its helpline being temporarily suspended.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms   Winterton) has met members of the organisation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was also present at the meeting, where the difficulties were discussed. At that time, the problems relating to the continuation of the helpline were not known, so some of the suggestions made at the meeting might no longer be appropriate. I am pleased to say that the issues are being addressed, and I understand that NAPAC is liaising with the Survivors Trust about the future of the helpline. There is much work still to be   done and some investigations to be undertaken. I   cannot commit my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central to a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. This does not seem the best moment for such a meeting, but it may be appropriate at some future time.
	I hope that I have conveyed the importance that we all   place on the issue of abuse and the partnership working across Government and across the statutory and non-statutory sectors. I am confident that with the leadership, vision, dedication and skills of everyone involved, we can continue to transform the health and social care provision for all the victims and survivors of domestic violence and child abuse, recognising, as my hon. Friend has in raising the issue, how important these matters are and how much assistance people in that situation need and deserve.
	I join my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons in wishing everybody—Members and Officers of the House—a happy Christmas, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting for raising an extremely important matter on this occasion, as we close the debate for Christmas.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.